Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.



DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death, on active service, of Temporary-Lieutenant Dudley Jack Barnato Joel, R.N.V.R., Member for the Borough of Dudley, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Grampian Electricity Supply," presented by Mr. T. Johnston.

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it competent for the House to take any exception even to the presentation of this Bill, the purpose of which is known to Members and that purpose is objected to? I know that this is a non-effective stage, but I would like to have your guidance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot object to the presentation of the Bill, which is an automatic process.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this not a Government Bill promoted by the Secretary of State for Scotland? — [Hon. Members: "No."] —There is something on the Paper to which is appended the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would appear, therefore, that it has the endorsement of the Government. Is it not in quite a different category from some other Bills?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): No, Sir. Under the Act we must present the Bill.
Bill read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a

Second time upon the first Sitting Day after 29th June; and to be printed. [Bill 37-]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

CENTRAL REGISTER.

Captain Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state, out of the 199,000 names now on the Central Register, approximately how many relate to persons in employment; and of that figure how many can be said to relate to persons engaged in work for the national war effort?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Figures are not currently kept on the basis of the hon. Member's inquiry, but a special count was undertaken a year ago for the Select Committee on National Expenditure, when it was found that 96 per cent, of the persons on the Central Register were then in employment. It is estimated that less than 3 per cent. of those on the Register are now unemployed. In considering these figures, it should be borne in mind that enrolment on the Register is open to all persons with the prescribed qualifications, without regard to their suitability in any other respect for active employment. For the last part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his Question of 29th May on the work of the Central Register.

Captain Lyons: Is it not the fact that a year ago, when the revision was made, the figure on the Register was much less than the figure to-day, and if there is nothing to show how the Register can be utilised, will the right hon. Gentleman wind up the whole thing and put an end to this waste of money?

Miss Cazalet: Can the Minister say how many of the 199,000 are men and how many are women?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of these questions.

BEDAUX SYSTEM.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent the Bedaux system of production has been introduced in the


countries involved in the war; who are the directors of the company; is he aware that in this country agreements have been arrived at between the trade unions and organised employers providing for prices to be fixed by mutual agreement, and there is machinery to deal with cases of dispute; and is it intended to maintain these agreements and the machinery they provide?

Mr. Bevin: No recent information is available with regard to the operation of the Bedaux system in the countries involved in the war. It is understood that it was applied to a varying extent in pre-war years in individual firms in this country and in Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark, France and Italy. In accordance with the Companies Act, lists of directors of.companies are available for inspection at the offices of the Registrar of Companies. The answers to the last two parts of the Question are in the affirmative.

Mr. Smith: Have the Government any information about this Bedaux system being imposed upon the workers in France since they lost their trade unions, and, if so, can that information be given to the' House; if the Government do not possess the information, will they make an investigation in order that they can inform the House with regard to the introduction of this system?

Mr. Bevin: I will make inquiries.

REHABILITATION.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether it is intended to establish special training centres in order to equip the people for industry, who have been injured in war service of any form; has consideration been given to the evidence of the Joint Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the Medical Association to the inter-departmental committee on the rehabilitation of persons injured by accidents; and what action is to be taken to deal with this matter;
(2) whether he can make a statement on the consultations held between the Ministries interested in rehabilitation and training for men and women incapacitated during service in the armed forces and industry; is it intended to arrange for set-

ting up vocational training centres; to what extent are rehabilitation facilities provided; and when is it intended to have a satisfactory system in operation to cover all the needs of people injured in war service of any kind?

Mr. Bevin: As the House has already been informed, the facilities for vocational training provided by my Ministry's existing training scheme are open to all men who are fit to undergo the training, and it is hoped that substantial numbers of men and women who have been injured in the Armed Forces, in war service of any kind or in industry, will after treatment prove capable of this training. For those of them who require training but are not fit for the existing courses, special courses will be provided as the need for them reveals itself, either in the Ministry's own training centres or in other institutions or with employers. Account will be taken of the evidence given by the Joint Committee of the Trades Union Council and the Medical Association. Further details of these arrangements will be announced in due course. In the first instance the scheme will be limited to training in occupations useful for the war effort.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is the Minister aware that vocational training is not rehabilitation? The rehabilitation goes right back into the Services, and is he, therefore, in touch with- the Services in regard to getting rehabilitation from the time of their treatment to their return to industry?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir; we are in consultation both with my fight hon. Friend the Minister of Health and with the Service Ministers.

NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS (MINING INDUSTRY).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether National Service officers have yet been appointed in the mining industry for purposes of the Essential Work Order?

Mr. Bevin: All Employment Exchange managers and certain other officers in the Exchange service already hold appointments as National Service officers, and I do not consider it necessary to make separate appointments for the Essential Work (Coal Mining Industry) Order.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister fully satisfied that this arrangement will work, in view of the peculiarities of the mining industry?

Mr. Bevin: I think it will work so well that it may alter some of the mining peculiarities.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour under what powers boys who, at one time, were engaged in coal mining but had entered other occupations, are being ordered to leave such employment by the Consett Employment Exchange and re-enter the pits; and whether guarantees are being given to such entrants that they will be taught one of the recognised crafts of the industry and not be entering blind-alley employment with the status of labourers?

Mr. Bevin: A few boys at Consett who had secured employment outside the coalmining industry in contravention of the Undertaking (Restriction on Engagement) Order, 1940, were directed by the National Service officer under Regulation 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations to return to coalmining. Persons so directed have the right to appeal to the local appeal board. With regard to the last part of the Question, I have brought to the notice of my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines the importance of providing adequate training for boys in the coalmining industry, but it would not be practicable to confine the issue of directions to cases in which the boys are to be trained as craftsmen.

Mr. Adams: While thanking the Minister for that Reply, I feel that the matter ought to be pursued further, and I therefore beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the need for increased production of coal, he will give further consideration to the re leasing of men from the Army for the coal industry?

Mr. Bevin: I am not prepared to recommend the release of men from the Army for this purpose, but I am taking other steps in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines with the object of meeting the requirements of the industry.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the fact that a number have been taken in the last few weeks whose training has not commenced, will my right hon. Friend consider releasing them, and will he give instructions that no further men are to be called-up from the mining industry?

Mr. Bevin: The numbers taken into the Army in the last few weeks must be very small, because the instruction to call up people was limited to young persons working on the surface only, and if they are employed below ground in their proper capacity, they are automatically reserved. I have taken steps to prevent any calling-up of underground miners, and also taken steps, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, to stop recruiting from this industry, with one exception, that is, young men volunteering to become pilots in the Air Force.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the desirability of keeping an even balance of age in the mining industry, in view of the fact that so many thousands of young, virile men have gone into the Army that unless younger men come back production will be affected, and will he seriously reconsider this matter?

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the chaotic position of the coal industry and that it cannot be very long before some of our munition works may have to close down for lack of coal; and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Minister aware that men are being called up this week from the mining industry?

Mr. Bevin: Coal seems to be a burning subject.

Mr. Levy: It is, but the difficulty is that we have no coal to burn.

Mr. Bevin: Most of the questions that have been put to me ought to have been put to the Secretary for Mines. With regard to the calling-up, I would like to have particulars of people called up recently. It is not in accordance with the facts except in the limited sense that I have indicated; and with regard to the chaotic position in the coal industry, I can hardly be held responsible for that. It is not my Department.

ABSENTEEISM, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has inquired into the large amount of absentee ism in war production in South Wales, due to the inadequate and congested transport arrangements; and what he pro poses to do to remedy the position?

Mr. Bevin: My information is that difficulties due to absenteeism in South Wales are decreasing. My local officers are constantly occupied with the difficulties of transporting workers to and from their work arising from the special features of that area and they are in close touch with the Regional Transport Commissioner as well as the other interests concerned.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that representations have been made about the transport position, which is still as bad as it was months ago? Is he aware that in a valley in the constituency that I represent hundreds of women are left stranded every morning and cannot get to work because buses do not turn up?

Mr. Bevin: That raises the whole question of the fundamental organisation of transport, and in that connection I am about to consult my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister of the opinion that this is the only cause of absenteeism?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

EVACUATED CHILDREN.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will define the responsibilities of persons on whom children are billeted as regards causing such children to attend school; and, in the event of the children refusing to go to school, what are the powers of the person specified in regard to the children?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): It is the duty of the parent to cause his child to receive efficient elementary education, and the expression "parent" is denned in the Education Act, 1921, as including "guardian and every person who is liable to maintain or have actual custody of the child." It would be for the courts

to decide whether persons on whom the children are billeted fall within this definition.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been actual cases where unruly children have been billeted on foster parents who have been quite unable to control them and have been summoned? Further, is he aware that there have been cases where a foster parent has exercised force on the child and has been summoned for assault?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The question of liability is one for the courts, and in my experience there is no difficulty. However, I would like to have particulars of such cases. If a child persists in playing truant, the best course would probably be to re-billet him in a hostel where there is closer supervision than in an ordinary household.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Are local education authorities attending to their business to see that these children do attend schools in their localities?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think they are taking vigorous steps in that direction.

Sir F. Fremantle: Would not a really good smacking be the best thing?

STATISTICS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give, to the latest convenient date, the number of children of school age in England and Wales in full-time attendance at school, the number attending for part-time only, and the approximate number of those not receiving any regular school education?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The latest date for which complete figures are available is 1st April, 1941. On that date, 4,435,539 children, 96.5 per cent., were enrolled for full-time attendance at public elementary schools in England and Wales, 118,726–2.6 percent. —for part-time only, and it was estimated that 40,749— 0.9 percent. —were receiving no instruction.

Mr. Harvey: Is the Board taking any special steps with regard to those children who are not receiving any regular school education?

Mr. Ramsbotham: We are doing all we possibly can to get them to school

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESSIVE RENTS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at Llandrindod Wells £6 6s. per week was recently demanded for part only of a house; and whether, in view of the difficulty of adequately punishing persons letting furnished accommodation at excessive rentals, he will increase the powers of local authorities in this respect?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes." I cannot, however, accept the implication contained in the second part, since, as I recently stated, the majority of the prosecutions of which local authorities have informed me have been successful. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular which I sent to all local authorities last week asking them for a special report for the period 1st October, 1940–30th June, 1941.

Mr. Hall: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that there is an increase in the number of cases where local benches are refusing to convict in the most flagrant instances? Will he do something to take the power out of their hands and put it into the hands of other courts?

Mr. Brown: I would not accept that statement. There is one particular case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, where the council have asked the magistrates to state a case in respect of their decision.

Mr. Hall: But frequently these magistrates or their friends are interested in the case.

Mr. Brown: I asked for this report so that I might inform myself of the position.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be better to take drastic action of a statutory kind in order to prevent this profiteering?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

DAMAGED HOUSES (FIRST-AID REPAIRS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some local authorities are using inflammable material for weatherproofing bombed houses; and, in view of the increased danger this provides, whether he can take

steps to render such material reasonably fireproof, or to make more suitable material available?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that some local authorities, realising that it is essential that first-aid repairs to houses should be carried out as soon as possible after damage has occurred, have where circumstances have precluded other methods of repair, patched roofs with inflammable material. After consultation with my noble Friend the Minister of Works and Buildings, I am drawing the attention of local authorities to the importance of using non-inflammable materials whenever possible. I am emphasising that if the use of inflammable material is, on occasion, unavoidable, it should be replaced by other material at the earliest practicable moment.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister see that such inflammable material as is still being used is rendered fireproof by some chemical means?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure about that.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of serious complaints in Sheffield that whilst many houses damaged by enemy action are not receiving attention, other houses of a particular character, of which he has been informed, have no difficulty in having the repairs executed; and what steps he is taking to remedy this?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, but I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Captain Lyons: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that luxury shops are not being reconstructed in preference to houses which are wanted, and will he watch carefully to see that there is no discrimination of this type by the building industry or the Ministry of Works and Buildings?

Mr. Brown: That question is so vague that I should like to see it on the Paper.

EVACUATION.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made to ensure that proper fire-fighting appliances and fire-escapes are provided in all buildings used for evacuation schemes for which the Ministry is directly or indirectly responsible?

Mr. E. Brown: Local authorities were instructed in a circular in August, 1940, to review the air-raid precautions necessary in residential institutions provided in connection with the Government's evacuation scheme, and the authorities responsible were required to satisfy themselves that reasonable steps were taken to provide fire-fighting equipment and to train personnel against the risk of fire. In approving residential premises for evacuation purposes my Regional staffs have always in mind the question of means of rapid escape in the event of fire.

Sir D. Gunston: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many voluntary bodies have equipped homes for evacuated children? Do I understand that the Ministry of Health will provide fire-fighting appliances?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, the duty there is on the shoulders of the local authority, subject, of course, to the instructions which we send them.

Sir D. Gunston: But is the Minister aware that local authorities are reluctant to do this? This should come from another area. The burden need not be on the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Brown: If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case that he would like to draw to my attention, I would look into it so that I could have it in focus and see what the problem might be.

RENT AND RATES (DAMAGED PROPERTY).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of difficulties in determining rent and rates chargeable for damaged houses only partly habitable; and whether he will issue a statement for the guidance of local authorities, tenants and landlords?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon Friend to the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Bill at present before the House. If and when the Bill receives Royal Assent, I shall be prepared to issue a circular to local authorities explaining its provisions, and to take steps to ensure that it receives adequate publicity.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will that be done in connection with the Commissioners for Crown Lands, who own so much property and demand high rents?

Mr. Brown: The Question here is general.

BILLETING.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether he will supply an analysis of the average cost to householders of persons billeted upon them?

Mr. E. Brown: An analysis of the average expenditure by householders on evacuated persons could only be obtained by a series of detailed local investigations of a type which hardly seems justified at the present time.

Sir J. Mellor: How can my right hon. Friend insist that the billeting allowances are adequate if he is unable to give any figure?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that supplementary question in a supplementary answer. The allowance does, of course, take a number of factors into account, and these factors have been taken into account and a change made at least twice since the original allowances were made.

Sir J. Mellor: When will the Minister take an opportunity to give me this very important information?

Mr. Brown: On the appropriate occasion.

FOREIGN ORGANISATIONS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to give an assurance that all the following associations, namely, the Free German League of Culture, Free German Youth, Austrian Centre, Council of Austrians in Great Britain, Young Austria, Working Refugee Women, Refugee Teachers' Association and Young Czechoslovakia, are engaged in relief and welfare work and carry out no political activities contrary to the public interest?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): While the main objects of these organisations are cultural and benevolent, and many of the members and supporters who are interested in these objects are entirely innocent of any ulterior purpose, my information indicates that in each of these organisations Communists are to a greater or lesser extent exercising or trying to exercise an influence, in pursuance


of their common practice of infiltrating reputable organisations for the purpose of furthering their political aims.

Mr. Sorensen: Would not the same thing apply also to some trade unions, and as my right hon. Friend does not condemn trade unions because there are Communists in them, why should he make any kind of implied condemnation of these organisations in which there may be a few Communists but whose main work is of a cultural nature?

BRITISH-BORN MEN (ALIEN PARENTAGE).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that British-born men of alien parents were refused permission to join the Territorial Army and other branches of His Majesty's Armed Forces; and whether, under these circumstances, he can say to what nationality do such men belong, with special reference to Lithuanians and others, the countries of whose parents are now incorporated in the Union of Russian Soviet Republics?

Mr. H. Morrison: A person born in this country is a British subject, and if he were at one time, because of his foreign parentage, refused admission to the Territorial Army, this would not alter his national status. Persons of Lithuanian nationality are still recognised in this country as Lithuanians, but the fact that the father is classed as a Lithuanian does not affect the national status of the British-born son.

Sir R. Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the young men referred to in the Question, having volunteered for military service, have been asked to renounce their British nationality in favour of their parents' nationality, and have the Home Office anything to do with that?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. That would be a matter for the War Office.

GREEK NEWSPAPER OFFICE (POLICE SEARCH).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, on 27th May, police raided the premises of the Greek newspaper, published in London, "To Bhma-Vema," seized the correspondence, files, lists of subscribers, manuscripts, &c, found on the premises, and ransacked the proprietor's private

apartment; whether it is proposed to prosecute the paper; and, if not, will he take steps to get the property of this paper returned and compensation paid for the inconvenience caused to its proprietor, a British citizen?

Mr. H. Morrison: The search was made in accordance with the provisions of Defence Regulation 88A and was properly carried out by the police. I am unable to make any statement on the question of prosecution. Most of the property taken at the search has already been returned, and I can find no ground for considering any question of compensation.

Mr. Gallacher: Although it may be necessary to allow the police certain latitude in following up justified suspicions, should there not be a check of some kind on the police in the form of their having to pay compensation where there is a glaring case of an unjustified entry into premises?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. There may be cases where the police cannot be sure before the raid takes place whether they will be justified or not, and indeed that may be the purpose of the raid; and the action is not taken without a proper and responsible authority giving sanction for it. I think in these times the police must have reasonable freedom to conduct their operations.

FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the Home Secretary how many schemes have been submitted under the Fire Prevention (Business Premises) Order, 1941; and what percentage have been approved?

Mr. H. Morrison: The approval of schemes is in the hands of a large number of authorities, and it would not be practicable without a disproportionate amount of labour to collect the information desired by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that these schemes are not compulsory until they are approved, and that the failure to approve so many schemes is causing great difficulty? Will he think of some method by which schemes could be approved more quickly, such as the presentation of a certificate that the Order has been complied with?

Mr. Morrison: This is a point which is actively under consideration, and I am hoping almost at once to arrange, in agreement with the other Departments concerned, for a considerable degree of derogation to officers in the Region and to have co-ordination under the Regional Commissioners.

Mr. James Hall: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the necessity of seeing that the managerial side do their share of fire watching?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will know that I have stressed that póint from the beginning and that it has been provided for in the Order.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the present time there is considerable dissatisfaction among the work people that the managerial side and the employers are not doing their share and that the employés have no redress against them, whereas the employers have against the workpeople?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that in such cases the trade unions will take some action, but if my hon. Friend will refer to me any cases of which he knows, I shall be glad to do anything I can in the matter.

INTERNEES.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that of the aliens interned in Australia, 419 had been authorised for release before 31st May, but that the great majority of these, owing to lack of snipping facilities, are still interned and are subjected to the same rigorous treatment as other internees, being unable to speak to visitors except through wire-netting in the presence of armed soldiers, restricted in their correspondence, and forbidden to send cables; and will he approach the Australian authorities to secure that at least those internees, whose political reliability and good character is shown by the authorisation of their release, should be subjected to less harsh and humiliating treatment?

Mr. H. Morrison: In some 300 cases where internees intend to emigrate to the United States and other destinations outside the United Kingdom, release has been authorised conditional upon the in-

ternees obtaining the necessary visas. In the other cases in which return to this country has been authorised with a view to consideration being given to release, difficulties have been caused by the shortage of shipping accommodation. Full use is, however, made for this purpose of any accommodation that may become available. As my hon. Friend is aware, the position of the Commonwealth Government in this matter is that they accepted these persons among others for internment in Australia on the basis that no question of their release in Australia would arise. I appreciate, however, the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend and will consider, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, the question of making an approach to the Commonwealth Government to see whether special treatment can be accorded to the cases to which she refers. I understand that the Australian Regulations now allow internees to send cables on private business or on matters affecting their release.

Miss Rathbone: May I give notice, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the situation, and unless further assurances can be given, that I may have to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement regarding the assault by Italian Fascists interned in the Isle of Man on another Italian internee on account of his pro-British sympathies; whether the culprits have been punished; and whether, in view of this evidence of the loyalty of the victim of the attack, he will reconsider the question of his release?

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Home Secretary what punishment has been inflicted on the Italians interned on the Isle of Man who beat up a pro-British fellow internee and assaulted his guard recently?

Mr. Morrison: I presume that my hon. Friends refer to the assault committed in the Palace Camp, Douglas, on 11th instant, on the internee, Antonio Castellini. Three of his fellow internees have, I am informed, been arrested by the Isle of Man police on charges relating to this assault. The case being sub judice, it would not be right for me to make any further statement at present.

Mr. Strauss: Will ray right hon. Friend be good enough to answer the latter part of my Question, whether in view of the evidence of the loyalty of the victim of the attacks, he will reconsider the question of his release?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider the question of a release on the merits of the case, but I cannot be influenced in my decision by the facts of the assault. I will, however, look into the case.

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether, in the inquiry into the case of a friendly alien, Richard Weininger, now held as an internee, under Regulation 12 (5) A, the normal practice was followed by the tribunal of informing him what was known to his discredit?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Major Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man is wholly ignorant of the charges made against him?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is true. The position was made quite clear in the course of the proceedings, and that statement would not be justified.

Major Adams: Is the Minister aware that he is entirely misinformed, and that this man was examined when he was in a condition of extremely bad health?

Mr. Morrison: I have taken great care about this case, and I have decided that detention should be continued. I think I am right in the knowledge of all the facts available. The proceedings were very carefully conducted, and Mr. Weininger had ample opportunity to state his case fully to the committee.

Major Adams: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he will not reconsider the case?

Mr. Morrison: I have already reconsidered it on the report of the Advisory Commitee. I have come: to a certain conclusion, and I see no reason to vary that conclusion at the moment.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Minister aware that there are very substantial reasons for believing that Mr. Weininger has never had a statement in plain terms of the grounds on which he has been interned?

Mr. Morrison: When aliens, as distinct from British subjects, are interned, details are not furnished in the same sense as for British subjects. I think that is right. In the course of these proceedings it was perfectly clear that the apprehensions of the authorities were justified. It must be understood that the proceedings under this Order must be different from the proceedings in a court of law.

Major Adams: In view of the nature of the Reply, I beg to give notice that at the earliest possible moment I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give, respectively, the number of aliens interned in Australia who have been authorised for release but still interned, actually released, and not yet authorised for release?

Mr. Morrison: Out of about 2,500 aliens interned in Australia, there are 310 whose release has been conditionally authorised for emigration to the United States of America and other destinations, and 133 whose return to this country has been sanctioned with a view to consideration of their release. Of this.latter category, 62 are now on their way.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that some of these people who were authorised for release six months ago are still being kept under these extremely humiliating and restrictive conditions which are applied to those who have not been authorised for release?

Mr. Morrison: The term "authorised for release" is a misleading term which I had better not allow to stand. In the case of those coming back to this country, they are not authorised for release, but sent back because there is a prima facie case for release. In the case of the United States they require a visa, but the basic problem is shipping facilities, which my hon. Friend will realise are bound to be difficult at this time.

Miss Rathbone: Will the Minister consider cases that I will submit to him of men recommended for release who have been classified under Category 19, which is an extremely strict Category and which is only recommended for those who have been permanently, over a number of years, opposed to the Nazi system? In-spite of that fact these men, and one in


particular, have been recommended for release under that category six months ago, but are still behind barbed wire and not allowed to interview anyone except in the presence of armed witnesses?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that, but the Australian Government took these men on the basis that they would not be released in the Commonwealth. I am in a difficulty with regard to shipping, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am anxious to get these people over as quickly as possible.

Mr. Shinwell: Where does my right hon. Friend get all this information about shipping difficulties? Can we have some information?

SHELTERS.

Mr. Wilson: asked the Home Secretary how many applications there have been in Sheffield for indoor shelters; and how many have been supplied?

Mr. H. Morrison: It is not expedient, on grounds of security, to give publicly the information for which my hon. Friend asks. I will, of course, give it to him privately if he so desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL PERSONNEL (PRIORITY).

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether a decision has been reached, on the recommendation of the Robinson Committee, that an organisation should be set up for the settlement of questions of priority as between the demands of the Forces and civilian medical services for doctors?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends the Service Ministers and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided to set up a committee to investigate, in the light of the recommendations of the committee presided over by Sir Arthur Robinson, what further steps can usefully be taken to secure the utmost economy in the employment of medical personnel in His Majesty's Forces, the Emergency Hospital Scheme and the Civil Defence Services and all other medical services, including general practice, and to report from time to time what should be the allocation between these

services of the available medical personnel. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Dominions has consented to act as chairman. It is proposed that the other members of the committee should consist of nine or ten medical men experienced in different types of work, and it is hoped that the Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the chairman of the Central Medical War Committee will be closely associated with the work of the committee. I will circulate the names of the members of the committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. Fremantle: While I am grateful for that reply, inasmuch as this has been a burning question which caused great hardship last winter, and may cause hardship next winter, can my right hon. Friend accelerate this matter and deal with it at once?

Mr. Brown: The committee will begin their work at once.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Minister ask the committee to inquire into the difficulties of panel practice in connection with the National Health Insurance schemes? Doctors say they cannot possibly conduct their business.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the terms of reference that I have announced, he will see that they are very wide.

Following is the list of members:

The hon. Member for Norwich, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Dominions (Mr. Geoffrey Shakespeare) (Chairman).

Professor R. M. F. Picken, M.B., B.Sc., D.P.H., Welsh National School of Medicine.

Sir Alfred Webb-Johnson, C.B.E., D.S.O., F.R.C.S., Vice-President of the Royal College of Surgeons.

J. Crighton Bramwell, Esq., M.D., F.R.C.P.

Professor Sydney Smith, M.D., F.R.C.P. (Ed.), D.P.H., F.R.S. (Ed.), Edinburgh University.

J. A. Brown, Esq., M.D.

William Malcolm Knox, Esq., M.B., Ch.B.

Medical representatives of the Admiralty, War Office and the Air Ministry.

In addition, the following have agreed to be closely associated with the work of the committee: —

Sir Charles Wilson, M.C., M.D., President of the Royal College of Physicians.

Sir Hugh Lett, Bt., C.B.E., President of the Royal College of Surgeons.

H. S. Souttar, Esq., C.B.E., M.D., F.R.C.S., Chairman of the Central Medical War Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Pensions whether officers or personnel of the Navy, Army or Air Force killed or injured whilst doing voluntary fire-watching on Government property, such as the Air Ministry or Admiralty, will be treated as having been killed or injured on duty, or whether they will only come under the Civilian Injuries Scheme?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Members of the Naval, Military or Air Forces while voluntarily fire-watching on Government property under an organised scheme will be regarded as on duty, and any injuries arising out of that employment will be dealt with under the Service war pensions instruments and not under the civilian scheme.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Pensions why he has not been able to give a decision with regard to the claim to pension, which was submitted to him on 22nd February, 1941, by the hon. Member for Tamworth, on behalf of the widow of the late No. 1460572 Gunner J. G. Sutherland, who was killed on 19th November, 1940, by enemy action?

Sir W. Womersley: I regret that it has not been possible in the time available to obtain the papers which relate to this case from our office in the North. I will, however, look into it and write the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Sir J. Mellor: As it is now seven months since Gunner Sutherland was killed, and four months since I wrote to my right hon. Friend, surely he can give some fuller explanation than he has done?

Sir W. Womersley: I am sure the hon. Member is aware of the fact that I wrote him on 25th April and on 12th June on

this case, and that he gave me only 24 hours' notice of this question being on the Order Paper; and as we have our records far from London for the sake of safety, it was impossible to get them here by to-day. I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been no delay whatever that has been due to the action of my Department.

Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am not complaining of any inattention, but merely asking him to explain the delay?

Sir W. Womersley: When my hon. Friend gets the explanation, he will realise that it is not the fault of the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYÉ'S DISMISSAL.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether he has investigated the complaint brought to his notice concerning the dismissal of an employé by a certain firm in Banbury on allegations based on hearsay and reflecting upon the employés loyalty; and what has been the result of these inquiries?

Mr. H. Morrison: The inquiries which I caused to be made in this matter showed that it was one entirely between the employé and her employers. I have no authority to intervene in any way. I may add that careful inquiries by the local police failed to substantiate the allegations reflecting on the employé's loyalty.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that in this case, in which my right hon. Friend accepts that there was no foundation for the allegation, the employer was able legally to terminate an employé's employment without giving a reason and to spread rumours, will my right hon. Friend look into the problem of how a man or woman can defend his or her honour against such charges?

Mr. Morrison: I will do so, but it seems to me that the question involves the relationships between workmen and employers, which probably is more properly a matter for the Ministry of Labour. My hon. Friend will have seen, however, that at the end of my Answer I said that careful inquiries by the local police have failed to substantiate the allegations reflecting on the employé's loyalty. I hope that may be a helpful observation.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the refusal of accommodation, when accommodation was proved to be available, to a distinguished Indian publicist on racial grounds; and whether he will take action to prevent the recurrence of episodes of this character?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that this allegation relates to an unlicensed private hotel. The matter is not one in which I have any power to intervene, but if there has been discrimination against a British subject on the grounds alleged, I am sure I shall have the support of the House in expressing the strongest disapprobation of such action.

Mr. Sorensen: Why cannot my right hon. Friend take action with regard to these cases?

Mr. Morrison: Because I have no power to take any action.

Earl Winterton: Is the Home Secretary aware that this incident has caused the greatest resentment among friends and former colleagues of Sir Hari Singh Gour, like myself, and though it may not be possible for him to take any action, will he consider publishing the names of the people guilty of this outrage?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that, but I can assure the noble Lord that I made most careful inquiries as to whether I could take action, which I would have been pleased to do, but I have no powers. I will look into the aspect to which the noble Lord has drawn attention.

Mr. Gallacher: While approving of the Minister's reply, is it the case that the only people who should be discriminated against are the Communists?

Mr. Morrison: I am very appreciative of the hon. Member's approval, and on the other point which he made, I should be the last person to make any particular discrimination against him or anybody else, whatever his political creed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUCK THEFT, LONDON.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the recent theft in London of 1,330,000 cigarettes; and what action has been taken in the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have made inquiry and find that the facts are as follow: The truck and its contents were stolen at 6 p.m. on 13th June. The truck was found abandoned the next day at 9 a.m., and by 2.30 p.m. on that day the whole of the cigarettes, with the exception of 5,000, were recovered, and an arrest had been made. I understand that the case is now the subject of court proceedings.

Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I suggested last week that a hefty woman should accompany drivers of such lorries? Surely there are enough women in this country to accompany food lorries and lorries containing tobacco? Will he not consider some method by which these recurrent thefts can be stopped?

Mr. Morrison: It is a matter of relativity. Hefty ladies are exceedingly valuable in other ways, and it is a question where they would be most useful in relation to the risks involved. I will consider the point, but I am not sure that it is primarily a matter for me. In this case, I think the House will agree, the police evidently did a pretty smart piece of work.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (COMMAND).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the declaration, on15th June, by the Minister of Labour and National Service that it is clear that in the war effort the command of the Navy, Army and Air Force must be united; whether this represents the considered view of His Majesty's Government; and what changes are contemplated in the commands of the three services?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I understand from my right hon. Friend that he did not intend to make a declaration of the kind suggested. In his speech on 15th June he stressed that the Government was one of national unity, expressing the united will of the people, and that this unity at the top was reflected right down, in the Services and all branches of the war effort. The arrangements for securing unity of direction of the Armed Forces through the Office of the Minister of Defence and the Defence Committee are known to the House, and no change in them is contemplated.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend does, not appreciate the concern caused by the report of the speech, which was contained in the "Times," of 16th June, where my right hon. Friend is stated to have said:
It was clear that in the war effort the command of the Navy, Army and Air Force must be united, and the example of that unity must be reflected from the top"?
In view of the principle of Cabinet responsibility, is it not natural that the country should have assumed that my right hon. Friend was talking as a member of the Cabinet in making this important statement?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I think the explanation I gave of the purposes which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour had in view is perfectly clear and convincing. I cannot conceive anyone imagining that the Army, Navy and Air Force were going to be thrown into one.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABSENTEEISM (MINISTER'S STATEMENT).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the declaration on 14th June, by the Minister of Labour and National Service, that criticism about absenteeism nauseated him and a lot of nonsense was talked about it; and whether, in view of the serious criticism upon absenteeism contained in the Fifteenth Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, published one month ago, this statement represents the considered view of His Majesty's Government on this matter?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend informs me that he was not referring to informed criticism of the kind made in the Fifteenth Report of the Select Committee, which rightly differentiated between avoidable and unavoidable absenteeism, but was condemning exaggerated statements based on individual instances without proper examination of the facts. The Government is in general agreement with the views expressed by the Select Committee on absenteeism and has already taken action to give effect so far as practicable to its recommendations.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether there is greater absenteeism in these factories than among Members of Parliament in respect of their duties here?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (RECONSTRUCTION)

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether before any decision is taken to reconstruct the Chamber of the House of Commons in its old form, to rebuild on the same site according to a different and more convenient design, or to take a wholly different site for a new Palace of Westminster, he will undertake to grant full facilities for a Debate in the House?

The Prime Minister: I cannot conceive that anyone would wish to make the slightest structural alteration in the House of Commons other than perhaps some improvement in the system of ventilation, or some minor readjustment of the accommodation in the Galleries not affecting the size, shape or character.

Major Adams: Does that mean that it will be reconstructed substantially as it was before?

Sir William Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise what a relief to many people his statement will be, owing to the ill-informed suggestions which have been made in the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

VEGETABLE GROWING, RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the maximum effort is being made to grow vegetables and animal feeding-stuffs on suitable railway embankments, and other suitable railway property?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that land girls who become ill or incapacitated may be forthwith discharged from work; and whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that they shall not


fare worse when ill or incapacitated than if they were serving with the Auxiliary Territorial Service?

Mr. Hudson: Members of the Women's Land Army, although recruited and trained by the State, are not usually State-employed but work as employés of individual farmers under the ordinary conditions applicable to agricultural workers. Certain special arrangements and stipulations have, however, been made to prevent hardship to Women's Land Army members through sickness or unemployment, and I am sending details, to the hon. Member.

Mr. Sorensen: Why should girls in the Women's Land Army He penalised by being put in a more difficult position than their sisters who join other Forces?

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps the hon. Member would look at the information which I am sending him.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is a great deal of undrained land largely covered with rushes in the counties of Carnarvon and Merioneth, particularly adjoining the estuaries leading inland from Portmadoc and Barmouth; and whether Italian prisoners of war could be used to make this land more productive?

Mr. Hudson: A number of State-aided schemes for the improvement of land in the districts to which the hon. Member refers have been, or are being, carried out, and further work is under active consideration. Arrangements are being made for the provision of additional labour, including prisoners of war, for land drainage work, but I do not think that the areas in question are very suitable for the employment of prisoners.

SILAGE.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that silos made by digging suitable pits two feet deep in the ground are efficient and cheap; and can he see his way clear to give more publicity to this method of making silage owing to the importance of its food value?

Mr. Hudson: A great deal of publicity has already been given to this method of

making silage, and it will certainly receive its due share of attention in the national silage campaign.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not possible to make pit silage on every kind of land? It requires to be done with very great discrimination.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, and in the instructions that are being issued that point is brought out.

Mr. Higgs: Does the Minister realise that many farmers do not understand that pit silage can be made at all?

Mr. Hudson: A very full leaflet has been issued by my Department instructing farmers in all the different methods of making silage. It is a very comprehensive document, and anyone who wants to make silage can get the leaflet.

Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leaflet has not been effectively distributed? Will he see that every farmer gets a copy?

Mr. Hudson: I cannot accept that. It has been given very wide circulation.

UNCULTIVATED GARDENS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the case of uncultivated gardens in their boundaries due to families leaving the district for reasons connected with the war, the local authorities concerned have been given the right to enter and cultivate such gardens or to allow others to do so; and whether he will issue a statement to make the position quite clear for the information of the public and especially for the benefit of those who cannot obtain allotments in the ordinary course?

Mr. Hudson: Under the Cultivation of Lands Order, 1939, local authorities in England and Wales, with my consent, may enter on any garden, occupied or usually occupied with a dwelling house, for the purpose of providing allotments. Voluntary arrangements usually, however, make the exercise of these powers unnecessary. Local authorities are well aware of their powers and if any further publicity on the subject is necessary I hope this answer will serve the purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

COAL (STATE SUBSIDY).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the position of coal as one of the essential commodities now required, and the stabilising of the price to be paid by consumers, and anything beyond this fixed price to be met by a subsidy from the State such as is done in several other essential things?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kinsley Wood): On the general issues involved in this Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair) on the 17th instant. I could not give any such unconditional undertaking as is suggested in the Question, nor could I decide whether the circumstances justified a subsidy to coal without taking into account the position of other essential commodities and services.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present position is very unsatisfactory? Prices go up, and the public feel that they are not being dealt with properly?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot accept that as an accurate statement.

Mr. Levy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that comparatively little coal is being distributed and that, unless the matter is dealt with, many munitions works will close down for lack of coal before long?

Sir K. Wood: The Question relates to a subsidy on coal.

WAR SAVINGS (BANK COMMISSION).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that, in the present circum stances, it is in the national interest for the Government to pay to the banks commission on sums invested by their customers in Defence and Savings Bonds; and will he arrange for all sums so invested in the future to pass either through the banks free of such commission or through the post offices and the usual channels of the national savings movement?

Sir K. Wood: I am satisfied that the commission paid to the banks is reasonable in the light of the work involved. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of the fact that banks already make handsome profits out of their customers, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the commission paid, as far as the issue of Savings Bonds is concerned, is excessive, in view of the fact that the banks have very little work to do in connection with these bonds, the bulk of the work being done by the Bank of England and the Post Office Savings Bank?

Sir K. Wood: Of course, this is a matter of opinion on which one forms one's own judgment, but I think we do in fact get full efficiency, and I should like to recognise the help that the banks and stockbrokers are giving in guiding money into these loans.

REQUISITIONED PREMISES.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in the letter which has just been addressed by the Prime Minister to the various Government Departments who are concerned with the requisitioning of premises, no reference is made to the serious hardship suffered by individuals who have property requisitioned for which they are paid a rental often much less than that which they themselves have to pay by the terms of the lease or agreement under which the premises are held, nor is reference made to the fact that provisional notice of requisitioning is often given for many weeks or months without letting the individual know whether his premises will actually be required or not and so preventing him from attempting to obtain other accommodation; and what action is being taken in these matters?

Sir K. Wood: My right hon. Friend's note dealt generally with the use of requisitioning powers and not with individual points arising out of their use. With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I would refer him to the Answer I gave him on 27th May; as I then went on to say, I am having an examination made of such cases of complaint as hon. Members have sent to me. I am not aware of the difficulty referred to in the latter part of the Question, but if my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind, perhaps he will let me have particulars of it.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great urgency of the


matter and that many people are having to pay rent for premises from which they have been removed and for which they get no value? As to the second point, I have just received a 'letter from a constituent saying that he was ordered to vacate premises as long ago as November last in a week or fortnight's time. The premises are still standing empty and all that he has received is a very small sum towards his expenses, which in no way recompenses him.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the particulars.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of arranging for Government Departments to take over the tenancy agreements?

MEDICINE STAMP DUTY.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in proposing to repeal the Medicine Stamp Duties, his predecessor was influenced by the action threatened by Messrs. Woolworth for illegal administration of the duties; and whether, as an alternative to repeal, he will consider the introduction of a Bill to legalise any such administration?

Sir K. Wood: The legal action to which my hon. Friend refers merely illustrated the difficulties to which the administration of these antiquated Acts continually gave rise. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore in the negative.

Major Procter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present approximate annual yield of the Purchase Tax upon medicines; and to what extent this yield exceeds the present annual yield of the Medicine Stamp Duties?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Before the announcement of the abolition of the Medicine Stamp Duty in the recent Budget it was estimated that the yield of the duty in a full year would be £800,000. Precise figures of the yield of the Purchase Tax on prepared drugs and medicines are not available, but I think it possible that the yield for a full financial year will be of the order of £3,000,000.

WAR DAMAGE ACT.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the War Damage Commission will only supply one copy of Form No. C1, being a notification of damage pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of the War Damage Act, 1941, to persons notifying them as to property damaged by enemy action, such form containing a large number of printed questions, all of which, with their answers, have to be copied out, involving applicants in considerable loss of time and expense; and will he instruct the Commission to send a duplicate for retention by the person making the claim?

Sir K. Wood: The limitation on the issue of Form C1is due to the need for economising paper, and I do not feel justified in asking the War Damage Commission to change their practice. The particulars asked for are simple matters of fact or opinion, and normally the retention of a copy of the form by the claimant should be unnecessary.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it saves no paper, because the person who receives the form has to use paper in making a copy, and also that a great deal of time and trouble are taken in copying out all the questions? Would it not be simpler to send two printed forms rather than put the applicant to the trouble and expense of copying it out?

Sir K. Wood: I could not agree that it is necessary to copy out the whole of the form.

GOLD (PRICE).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part is played by the Treasury in fixing the price of gold; and what other parties are concerned?

Sir K. Wood: The price at which gold is bought on behalf of the Treasury is fixed by the Treasury in consultation with the Bank of England.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN "VISCOSE COMPANY (SALE OF SHARES).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the valuation of shares for the sale of the American Viscose Company to America was arrived at; and


what was the urgency for continuing the sale, in view of the lease of bases to the United States of America and the decision of the Canadian Government with regard to gold payments?

Sir K. Wood: These shares were sold to the public by an American banking syndicate at the best price at which it appeared that they could be successfully placed on the market. The object of the sale was to add to our exchange resources, and I would remind my hon. Friend that our need of foreign exchange remains great, despite the far-reaching assistance given to us as regards new supplies by the United States under the Lease-Lend Act and by the helpful attitude of the Canadian Government.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "New York Times" described the sale as detrimental to Britain? Does he propose to continue this policy of forced sales?

Sir K. Wood: I am not acquainted with what the "New York Times" said.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at what is said in other countries? It is commonly said that he is acting in the interests of Wall Street and no-one else.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

POTATO PROCESSING, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, for the encouragement of the farmers in Northern Ireland, he will state whether the sites have yet been selected for, and the work of erection begun upon, the potato-processing factories in Ulster which are to produce potato meal for the feeding of animals and flour for human consumption; and whether these factories will be ready in good time to deal with the present year's potato crop?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Sites for the erection of potato-processing factories in Northern Ireland have been provisionally selected, and orders will shortly be placed for the necessary plant with a view to the commencement of processing in the autumn.

Dr. Little: As the matter is pressing, will my hon. and gallant Friend promise that

he will push forward these factories as quickly as possible?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, I am glad to say that every effort will be made to get them ready as soon as possible.

UNRATIONED FOODS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can do anything to en sure a more adequate distribution of unrationed foods in Normanton and other districts?

Major Lloyd George: Many of the more popular of the unrationed foods are in short supply, and I have no information to suggest that the shortage at Normanton is more acute than elsewhere. If my hon. Friend has any particulars which he can send to me I shall be glad to give the matter further consideration.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some dealers can get certain commodities and that others cannot?

Major Lloyd George: I will look into that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

IRON ORE, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has had the promised further samples of iron ore taken from the mine in County Down; whether these samples have been tested; and with what result?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 8th May. Recent reports from Northern Ireland are that conditions are still unsuitable for sampling.

Dr. Little: Was not a promise made that once the earth dried up this matter would be attended to, and is my hon. Friend aware that they have found dry ground now and that everything is ready; and will he promise that this will be attended to at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Macmillan: We are in close touch with the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland, and they are advising us of the right moment at which to lake these samples.

PIT TIMBER. (REMOVAL FROM PORTS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will have inquiry made as to the delay that took place in removing imported pit timber from certain ports?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: During the last few weeks large quantities of pit timber have been removed from the ports. Difficulties were experienced at certain ports, but these have been quickly overcome and the dispersal is now completed.

Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this Question deals with the difficulties before a certain incident occurred, and if there had been one-tenth of the speed in getting the timber away from the ports before that occurrence, thousands of standards of good pit timber would have been saved? Will he have an inquiry made into why it took place?

Mr. Macmillan: The difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers have been largely removed, and I think it would be disheartening to the Department if we were to be blamed for curing mistakes as for having made them.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that my desire for an inquiry is not as to what has happened since a certain occurrence, but what happened before? Is he aware that there was wrangling for about 15 months over the price of stacking timber, plus the fact that a certain price was offered which was not accepted, and will he inquire into why the timber was left at the port so long?

Mr. Macmillan: I will look into it further.

Captain Lyons: Does not my hon. Friend use the compulsory powers he has with regard to timber and everything else?

MACHINE TOOLS, UNITED STATES.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for inspecting in America machine tools purchased for despatch to this country; and whether a stipulation is made that they are to be despatched completely tooled up?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The British Purchasing Commission are responsible for the inspection of all machine tools purchased in America for despatch to this country and maintain an Inspection

Department for this purpose. Wherever possible standard equipment has been obtained with the machines, and further separate purchases have been made of additional equipment wherever it seemed advantageous so to do.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some of these tools are very old, that they are arriving in this country untooled up, that it will take months to equip them, and that it is useless to send them over unless they are despatched completely tooled up?

Mr. Macmillan: A large number of problems are involved in this. A large number of tools have been purchased, and I should hesitate to do anything but express the deepest appreciation for the support we have had from the American Government in allocating to us a very large number of machine tools.

Mr. Stokes: I am not calling in question the integrity of the American Government, but the competence of our purchasers. Some of these tools are excessively old and are useless without proper equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING MATERIAL.

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is aware that a special building material is being manufactured in the United States of America out of surplus cotton which is thought to be suitable for the erection of hutments; and whether he will consider the possibility of obtaining American assistance under the Lease-Lend Act for the construction of accommodation to house-workers of evacuated industries in areas where there is shortage of accommodation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): At present this country's resources are adequate to provide materials for the construction of accommodation for workers of evacuated industries, but inquiries are already being made for further details of the experimental building material in question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to


make with regard to the course of the war, and also with regard to the forthcoming Business of the House?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be convenient to-day for me to make a statement about the war. It is possible that when we next meet I may have something to say upon the very important operations which have been pursued with so much vigour in the Middle East.

The Business of the House will be as follows:

On the 1st Sitting Day—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure, 1941. Afterwards the Adjournment of the House will be moved and a Debate will take place on Shipping, in Secret Session.

On the 2nd Sitting Day—Supply: Committee (nth Allotted Day). A Debate will take place on Propaganda. The Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit will also be taken.

On the 3rd Sitting Day—It will be necessary for us to ask the House to pass a special Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages. This Bill is required in connection with the Vote of Credit. Afterwards we shall take the Committee stage of the Goods and Services (Price Control) Bill.

During the week we hope to make progress with the Trustee (War Damage Insurance) Bill [Lords].

Mr. Lees-Smith: With regard to the first Sitting Day, will the Prime Minister indicate what arrangements will be made for the Debate on shipping?

The Prime Minister: I have come to the conclusion, after careful reflection, that any Debate on the shipping situation ought to be in Private Session. [Hon. Members: "No."] I think that there might be serious danger to the public interests if the matter were discussed in public. If the Debate is in secret, I shall hope to be able to make a statement to the House. I should certainly not attempt to do so in public. I do not think I could do justice to the topic, every part of which is inter-related. I must remind the House that the Battle of the Atlantic is a continuous operation going on from day to day, and its seriousness has not by any means been removed

by anything that has occurred as the year has advanced. So I hope the House will be willing to accept the judgment of the Government upon the matter, at any rate until after we have discussed it.

Mr. Shinwell: May I beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision? May I ask him to remind himself of the fact that already we have had two Debates on the shipping position in Secret Session, and there are doubts whether any fruitful results accrued? There is a strong feeling both in the House and, I believe, outside that on this occasion the Debate should be used for the purpose of removing disquiet in the public mind and at the same time to arouse a sense of urgency among the public in relation to the war situation. May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that many conflicting and, indeed, alarming statements have been made by responsible statesmen—President Roosevelt, for example, with a full knowledge of the situation, and by the First Lord of the Admiralty and many others—and that it is desirable to remove this confusion which keeps the public very much in the dark? Finally, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision in view of the desire of hon. Members, while exercising the utmost discretion and affording no material comfort to the enemy in the course of the Debate, to use the occasion to assist the Government rather than to embarrass the Government's efforts; and for that purpose it would seem that, even if we are to be deprived of my right hon. Friend's eloquence on that occasion, it would be desirable in all the circumstances to have the Debate in public?

The Prime Minister: I cannot feel that any justice could be done to this subject by partial statements on behalf of the Government. I feel that in order to deal with it there must be comprehensive statements going to the root of matters. I am sure they cannot be made in public. I therefore feel that a Debate which was conducted merely as it were from particular, detached angles would not be helpful to the House or informative to the public. I think the advantage of our discussing the matter in Secret Session will be to enable the House to see whether or not the argument set forth by the Government is a correct one. I certainly feel


that it will be very difficult indeed to conduct the Debate in public. I have always taken the view, if the House wishes to make speeches on topics, that whenever possible and Business permits, the House should be given an opportunity to do so, but Government statements on this subject are extremely difficult to make, in fact impossible to make, except under the protection of a Secret Session.

Mr. ShinwelI: May I ask whether it is not desirable that on some occasion the House should have an opportunity of expressing itself irrespective of a Government statement, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that all the facts and figures that are relevant to the shipping position, however disquieting, are to be found in official reports and in the shipbuilding Press, and therefore there is no question of disclosures which are likely to be embarrassing to the Government?

Mr. Maxton: I have a very open mind on the value of Secret as against Public Sessions, and I would readily agree that there should be a Secret Session Debate, although I agree with the hon. Member that the continued secrecy about shipping —no publicity about shipping—tends to arouse alarm in the country which I do not think, however serious it may be, need be as alarming as all that. I would readily agree to another Secret Session if I had a reasonable assurance that the Prime Minister's statement to-day about things that can be said in secret which cannot be said in public would be borne out by the facts; but to come here as we came to the Debate on the supply situation and then to read in the news papers the following day a statement, obviously issued by the Minister, which contained all the essentials—I cannot say any more; I am limited by my oath of secrecy —

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which is now the subject of an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Maxton: That is another reason why I cannot say any more. I think that the Government are not handling Secret Sessions as they ought to be handled unless there are genuine, full statements made. I can think of one or two things that we have not been told about—sub-

marine sinkings and so on. Then there are the steps taken to safeguard mercantile shipping, which have never been told in public so far as I know, and never printed publicly, of which we might be told here. There is also the amount of success achieved in protecting shipping. If we are to get only something along the lines of what we have had, it would be, I think, not worth the trouble of espying strangers.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Would my right hon. Friend bear these considerations in mind? Of course, if he has reached the conclusion that it is advisable for him to make a statement in Secret Session, nobody could contest that, and it is proper that he should do so whenever he feels it to be desirable, but will he recall the effect that was created in the United States when we ceased to publish the shipping losses on a weekly basis and put them instead on a monthly basis? The utmost alarm was caused. It is most important to elicit the full co-operation of public opinion in the United States for further help from that country, if possible in convoy. That is clearly the view of the President of the United States, who has made a very strong statement upon shipping revealing the true facts with a view to carrying public opinion in his country. As most of the facts are known, is it not desirable that we should face them with candour and resolution? Further, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on the occasion not only of the Secret Session about the supply situation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has referred, but also the Secret Session on economic warfare, statements were made by Government Departments afterwards, which, of course, must have borne some correspondence to what was said in this House, and that it is very wrong that a partial and one-sided view should be given to the public by the Government stating a case through publicity officers while those who have a contribution to make in this House should have their remarks concealed by the demands of a Secret Session? It is principally for these reasons that I would ask my right hon. Friend, even if on this occasion he wishes to make his statement in secret, which we would all understand, that some means may be taken of showing what is the view of the House of Commons on this subject.

The Prime Minister: I think I must really ask the House to be advised by His Majesty's Government upon this matter. I could go into it in great detail when we are together privately. It would be a great pity if we were forced to conduct discussions on these most grave matters with the enemy listening, every word reaching them quite soon. No justice can be done to the arguments; there can be no real freedom in argument. A statement can easily be made and will be made from time to time by the Government. It is said that the statement would be partial and one-sided. I thought we were all rather on one side now, but if there are two opinions about that, I still trust that the Government will receive the support of the House in this matter. No decision is final. We can have our Debate and see what the conclusions are among ourselves, and perhaps some statement may be made in public afterwards, because that would be quite possible. I do not feel that any justice could be done to this topic by a public Debate at present. As to the desire expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we should give a greater stimulus to the shipbuilding and ship repairing effort, it might well be that a Debate of that kind might take place after the House is in possession of the real facts.

Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely what we want.

The Prime Minister: But it would be impossible to separate that from the general question of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Earl Winterton: On that point of procedure. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware, when he says he must ask the House to accept the advice of the Government, that it is open to any Member—and it is an opportunity of which I shall certainly avail myself—on the Motion that strangers do withdraw to raise the whole question? I think it is in the public interest that it should be raised. I hope he does not suggest that it cannot be raised, because it is in Order to do so, and some of us —

Mr. Speaker: The Noble Lord states that he proposes to raise the question on the Motion that strangers do withdraw, but that is not a debatable Motion. If he wishes to raise the question, he must do so on the Question that the remainder of the Sitting be a Secret Session.

Earl Winterton: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall raise the matter on the Question of the rest of the proceedings being in Secret Session. I shall raise the point with you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is anything to preclude the Press from publishing information contained in that Debate, since the House will not then have gone into Secret Session.

The Prime Minister: Nothing would be further from my wish than to deprive the noble Lord of any Parliamentary facilities of which he may desire to avail himself. On the contrary, I think we have achieved during this war and under this Government the greatest association of the representative institution with the Executive that has ever been attempted under such conditions. Personally, I labour constantly to secure the power, authority and prestige of the House of Commons. That shall always be my faithful effort and endeavour, because I think it would be a glorious thing if we came through this with all our Parliamentary faculties undiminished, nay, having, in fact, played a vital part in the struggle. I look upon the House as friends; we could not fight this through without them, and in that spirit I should wish this matter to be considered. If, after the Debate is over, when a new view may be taken on either side as to what should be done, the Noble Lord wishes to try conclusions with the Administration on any point, it may be a very convenient opportunity for seeing exactly who his friends and associates are.

Sir W. Davison: Is the Noble Lord aware that both the House of Commons and the country consider the judgment of the Prime Minister and the Government better than his?

Sir H. Williams: May I point out to the Prime Minister that many of us take the view that the main cure of some of the difficulties in connection with the shipping situation will come from publicity, and that without publicity the evils which exist and are known to many of us, will not be cured? That is why we think it vital to have a Debate on the shipping situation in public, even if the House of Commons is deprived of a brilliant speech by the right hon. Gentleman.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Would it be possible to have part of the Debate in public, so that Members who wish to bring forward points in public could do so, while the Prime Minister's statement was made, rightly, in secret?

The Prime Minister: That would be possible on a second day.

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask the Prime Minister a question upon a small matter of business? Some time ago the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he proposed to bring in a Bill dealing with the rents of houses and other places that have been bombed. Could the right hon. Gentleman spare a moment to consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the urgency of this Bill and the need for bringing it in at an early moment, as it is a matter of great importance to Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I shall be very glad indeed to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland what the position is about that matter.

Mr. Shinwell: As there appears to be some slight confusion about the matter which we have been discussing, may I put a further point? Is the Prime Minister basing his decision on the desire of the Government for a Debate on shipping, and is he aware that the Debate was not suggested by the Government nor was thereat any time any desire expressed by the Government to disclose to the House the position in regard to the Battle of the Atlantic and other matters? In fact, the request for the Debate came from this side of the House, and in view of the Government's reluctance to raise the matter, and the matter having emerged from discussions on this side, would the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider it in that light?

The Prime Minister: I have very carefully considered it, and I am sure that the kind of Debate that takes place in public would not be a Debate which would give a fair or complete presentation of the case, either to the House or to the country, and I am most anxious that the House should consider the matter, if it wishes to do so, in private,

Mr. Shinwell: Suppose the House decides net to have a Debate at all. The

request for the Debate came from a section of the House. Supposing that that section of the House decides that in the circumstances there is no advantage in having the Debate, what is the position? Will the Government persist in the Debate?

The Prime Minister: The resources of civilisation would not be exhausted. The matter having gone thus far, I should, myself, ask that the House should consider it.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will an early opportunity be given to the House to discuss the general question of production, particularly in view of the fact that the whole atmosphere is being poisoned by charges of absenteeism directed against workers and by statements made by responsible labour leaders about slackness in the workshops and mismanagement? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be in the public interest to have a Debate on this matter in public at the earliest possible moment, because, as I say, the whole atmosphere is now being seriously poisoned?

The Prime Minister: I think it would be a very good thing to have such a Debate, and certainly it should be in public, but I hope that everyone, on both sides of the argument, will keep his attention constantly fixed upon the object, namely, improved production, and that we shall not get into a fight between capital and labour or between employers and working classes, each beginning to throw things at the other in a metaphorical sense. I am sure that that would give an altogether false impression abroad as to the real purpose which unites us all.

Mr. Bevan: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no desire on the part of anyone to have a Debate in the House of Commons about the relative responsibilities of capital and labour? We are all more anxious to have a Debate about the responsibilities of the Government.

The Prime Minister: Quite a good topic.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the meantime, until such a Debate takes place, he will ask Members of the House to realise that working men who, when this Government


was formed, threw everything to the winds, and gave all to the effort, resent all these suggestions that they are slackers? They are not slackers; they are working hard for the nation.

Mr. Granville: With regard to the Debate on propaganda, as this affects a number of questions over which the Ministry of Information has no control, may we hope that it will be possible for a member of the War Cabinet to be present at that Debate?

The Prime Minister: I should think that would certainly be the case during the greater part of the Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: Arising out of the Prime Minister's remarks, and in connection with production and especially the production of coal, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that the coalowners refuse to treat the industry as a national industry and treat it as a county industry, it may not be necessary to boot the coalowners and boot them hard, in the course of that Debate?

TRUSTEE (WAR DAMAGE INSURANCE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.



Orders of the Day — GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I beg to move," That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I think it would be well, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, to refer to the general economic policy which is being pursued by His Majesty's Government, so that the place of this Bill in the general scheme can be shown. That economic policy is one of large design and extends over the whole financial, industrial, commercial and social activity of the country. It has the general objective of assisting the diversion of production and productive capacity to war purposes, while at the same time keeping down the cost to the public of the necessities of life. Industrially, these objectives are secured partly by the Government's control of the prices of the raw materials required in war, secondly by their control of the distribution of those raw materials, and thirdly by the rationing of food and clothing. Before the rationing of clothing was introduced the volume of manufacture was largely controlled, in consumers' goods, by the Limitation of Supplies Orders. Socially, rationing has the great advantage of ensuring a fair distribution to all classes of the population of the limited amount of goods which we are able to put at their

disposal, and a further virtue of rationing is that it prevents the pressure of demand on a limited supply from pushing up prices. On the financial side, inflation is further avoided by a system of high taxation and the campaign for saving, which has the effect of immobilising in the hands of the public; the extra purchasing power which has been put into them as a result of the war. It can be seen then, that these measures are part of a concerted and comprehensive economic policy, all parts of which fit into the general conception. All these measures are co-ordinated, and it would be quite untrue to say that any one of them is isolated or opportunist. They are part of a general plan.
Up to this point, however, I have omitted any reference to either wages or prices. It must be clear, if we are to carry on the industries of the country at the present level of wages and to avoid any further rise, that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, it can be done only by maintaining the purchasing power of money, or ensuring that the cost of a reasonable quantity of the more essential needs of every citizen is kept fairly steady. It is obvious that there are three ways in which, in these times, prices may rise. The first is by a reduction in the supply of goods, due to the diversion of resources to war purposes. The second is an increase in purchasing power flowing from the increased activity —greater employment and longer hours —which war has brought. Expressed more theoretically, a rise in price may take place through an increased volume of purchasing power being brought into relation with a static volume of commodities, or a decreased volume of commodities being brought into relation with a static volume of purchasing power. Thirdly, a rise may take place as a result of an actual increase in costs due to the war, such, for instance, as the extra cost of ocean freight, insurance and so forth. Ail these three causes may operate at the same time, and today, in this country, there is an increase in the purchasing power in the hands of the public —a moderate increase; there is also a declining volume of consumer goods, and an actual increase in costs.
The first two of these causes are dealt with by the Chancellor's policy of immobilising purchasing power by means


of voluntary and involuntary savings and high taxation, and by the rationing policy adopted by the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade. As regards the third cause, some rise in prices must be justifiable and inevitable. These actually-greater costs, particularly in those services which I have mentioned, are a direct result of the increased risks and delays caused by war and by the enemy. They have, however, been partly met by Government control, by judicious purchase of raw material, and by direct subsidy of some foodstuffs.
I have already described the general economic policy, which seeks to make the ground unfertile for a growth in prices, but it is clear also that direct measures to control prices are a necessary complement to the wider measures which I have described. It would be quite impossible to impose permitted prices or maximum prices, except as part of a General scheme. Unless demand is regulated to supply, and unless the extra purchasing power in the hands of the public is absorbed by taxation or by savings, no measure directed merely to the control of prices could hope to meet with any success.
I think that thus the objects at which this Bill aims will be agreed to in principle by everybody. It seeks, like the present Act, to control prices, to prevent profiteering in war, and to assist the Government's other measures in making available to the population their necessities at reasonably low prices. I think that at this point I should shortly describe how the present Measure widens the scope of the original Act. The Prices of Goods Act passed in 1939 aimed at keeping price increases within reasonable limits. A basic price was laid down and was the price at which goods were sold on 21st August, 1939. Under Section 4 of the Act traders were permitted to add to this basic price increased costs and charges which had been incurred as a result of the war, but the trader was under an obligation to justify the marking up of prices. Under Section 5, on the recommendation of the Central Price Regulation Committee, the Board of Trade were enabled to specify the permitted price for defined classes of goods. The present Bill which, like the present Act, is intended to apply to consumers' goods other than foodstuffs, and not to charges, such

as charges for electricity or gas, differs from the Prices of Goods Act chiefly in three ways. It gives power to the Board of Trade to fix maximum prices instead of merely permitted prices. Secondly, it adds control of the prices of services such as, for instance, furniture storage, to that which already obtains for prices of goods. Thirdly, the present Bill does not rely, as the original Act so largely did, upon complaints from the buyer, but imposes a responsibility of a more direct nature upon the Board of Trade.
The Prices of Goods Act has, up to a point, worked very well, and this has been mainly due to two causes—first, the admirable work which the Central Price Regulation Committee has done and which has been done by the local price committees throughout the country. I cannot pass on without paying a tribute to the very skilful way in which, under the chairmanship of Mr. Evershed, the Committee has performed a very difficult duty. Secondly, it has worked well because the British trader is patriotic, law-abiding and honest, and submits willingly to restrictions on his trade once he is satisfied that they are being equitably applied and, above all, that they are necessary. There is a number of main defects under the present Act. I think they can be summarised under eight main heads. Firstly, the Board of Trade, as I have already said, has no power to fix maximum prices, and we must have this power if a really strict and effective control is to be exercised. Secondly, the Act does not enable unnecessary re-sales by middlemen to be properly checked. Thirdly, it is based upon prices ruling in August, 1939, and there is no magic in this particular date, nor any guarantee that prices on that date of certain articles were not already unduly high. Fourthly, the Act has been much less effective in dealing with the wholesaler and the manufacturer than in dealing with the retailer as, owing to the reduced volume of goods available the retailer, relying upon the wholesaler or manufacturer, for supplies for his trade, has been reluctant to voice complaints against him. Under rationing the position is now different, because it is the customer who brings trade, not the goods. Fifthly, it has become evident that the costs which are allowed to be taken into the computation may require adjustment,


such as the overhead expenses in relation to reduced turnover. Sixthly, the Act, where it seeks to prevent the holding up of goods, requires strengthening. Seventhly, the Act covers only goods and leaves services untouched. And lastly, although the present Act applies to secondhand goods it is ineffective in controlling their prices because it is impossible to prove any basic price.
As I have already said, the present Act, largely because of the skill of the Price Regulation Committees, has worked well, and these defects have not impaired its general utility, but the gradual depletion of stocks of consumer goods, although they are still considerable, and the limitations of current manufacture imposed by the necessities of war, have placed an increasingly severe strain upon that Act. Early birds have, as usual, begun to appear in some numbers and have found the usual supply of early worms awaiting them. I propose to devote a little time to the discussion of this type of ornithology, so that the House may judge that the powers for which the Government ask are needed, and do not go beyond what is needed. It is, however, necessary, once again, before going into this matter, to express my admiration for the way in which the great majority of traders carry out the law. It is for this very reason that it becomes the duty of the State to protect them from the twistings and evasions of the less honest, who are, at most, a very small part of the whole. I think it a very poor argument that because breaches of the law, and evasions which defeat its object, are few and unlikely to have any general effect, that they can safely be ignored. Burglary and arson are professions which are embraced by very few, but that is a poor argument for not giving the police wide enough powers to stop them. In legislation such as is now proposed I feel more concerned about the protection of the consumer and the honest trader than that the depredations of the dishonest might bring discredit upon the Government.
I will describe three main fields in which the unrighteous flourish—fields which we now propose to fence off and police. These three fields are the conditional sale, the composite sale and the

intermediate or unnecessary sale or sales. First, the conditional sale. I will give a typical instance. The permitted price of thermos flasks is 3s. 6d. each. On information we received, a shop was visited by a Board of Trade officer, who asked for a thermos flask. The shopkeeper said he could only sell it if at the same time the customer would take a bottle of Busman's Balsam. This, I understand, is, as its name implies, a powerful and astringent remedy for bronchial troubles, and is particularly suitable to the fine pectoral development usually associated with busmen. As, however, our officer was a young woman, not a busman, and had not got any bronchial trouble, she was easily able to draw the conclusion that the offer of this cordial was dictated more by a desire to defeat the law than by the healing instincts of the proprietor. That is the conditional sale.
It is unnecessary to look further than the thermos flask for the composite sale. The customer goes into a shop and asks for a thermos flask. The proprietor says that there are none in stock but that he is able to offer an A.R.P. set. This set probably consists of a box in which are an empty bottle, previously put to better uses probably, a sandwich case and a thermos flask. The customer by a simple calculation probably reaches the conclusion that, as the set is sold for 17s. 6d., he is being sold a thermos flask for about 14s. or 15s.
In the intermediate or unnecessary sale an article changes hands several times, each intermediary takes profits, and ultimately the consumer has to pay all these profits, and the ultimate price bears no relation to the cost of production. I am not saying that all intermediaries are unnecessary; but there can be no doubt whatever that here and there in the country a sort of Black Bourse has been established where these transactions take place and where the services of these brokers are entirely confined to getting profits for themselves, by inflating the prices without becoming liable to the penalties for profiteering.
I might mention, as an instance of this, the new and celebrated industry of the semi-military steel helmet. The history begins with squares of metal of about 23 ozs. in weight which might fairly be


described as costing about 4½d., with a penny added for cutting and carting, making 5½d. The squares are delivered to a company, which cuts them into ovals and spins them into shells for helmets. This elaborate industrial operation leads to an addition of 9d. to the cost. The shells are then returned to the original company, and 3d. is added to cover the very heavy overhead charges involved in taking delivery of them. So far the profits upon the transactions have hardly proved sufficient to justify the risks taken, and at this stage a further 6½d. is added, making a total cost of 2s. These shells are then delivered to another company, which does not appear to do any work at all upon them, but charges 1d. for carriage and packing, and adds a margin of 9d.,making the average price 2s. 10d., These increasingly valuable articles are then sold, as I have said, at 2s. 10d., and resold at 5s. 11½d. It is not clear what services other than inspection are performed at this stage of the industrial process. Our steel helmet is then passed on at 5s. 11½., and the lining, strap and buckle are added—apparently an extremely delicate operation, because the steel helmet then passes to the retailer at 14s. 6d. The retailers, with a restraint which has hardly been shown by the manufacturers, throw these valuable articles at the price of 17s. 6d. to the public. When I tell the House that the protective quality of the helmets has been described as strictly comparable to that of a bowler hat, and that they become severely dented on impact with an ordinary kitchen table, hon. Members will realise that this pyramid of prices could hardly be justified by the results.
I give this illustration as the worst that has come to my notice of intermediate sales, and I must again stress that these are very exceptional rackets, and must not be taken to reflect on the honesty of the trading community as a whole. I perhaps speak more feelingly than many would on this subject, as when I was in business the average profit made by my firm on its turnover was three-eighths of one percent. If I had had transactions of this kind for a few weeks I should not only have been able to give my shareholders their capital back, but I should have been able to retire into a luxurious, if not a glorious, ease. His Majesty's Government are determined to stop trans-

actions of this kind, and will prosecute anybody guilty of these malpractices, more, as I have said, from a desire to protect the vast majority of traders, who loyally obey the law at the expense of their own pockets, and whose trade, not only here but internationally, has been built up on a standard of honesty and fair dealing which is proverbial, than from the other obvious desire to protect the law and the Government from falling into disrepute. I need not, of course, say again that the main object is to protect the consumer and to put into his or her hands the range of more essential goods at reasonable prices.
I have now dealt not only with the general economic plan of which this Bill forms a part, but with the misdeeds and evasions which it will seek to control and prevent; and I must conclude by giving very shortly a description of the main Clauses of the Bill and how they will operate to this end. Clauses 1 and 2 give the Board of Trade power to fix, by order, maximum prices at any stage of production or distribution, and a similar provision for fixing maximum prices for services in relation to goods. Orders under these Clauses, as under other Clauses, can be made after consultation with the Central Price Regulation Committee. Clause 3 deals with the subject of secondhand goods. It is clear that the same measures which apply to the primary goods cannot be applied to second-hand goods. Therefore, we seek to control unjustified rises in price of second-hand goods by taking powers to forbid the sale of such goods except by businesses registered in accordance with an order. Clause 4 gives the necessary powers to deal with the unnecessary sales between intermediaries of which I have given an unusual, and perhaps highly-coloured, instance. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 contain amendments to the principle Act, and Clause 6, subject to an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament, gives the Board of Trade the right to amend the first Schedule to the Act so that the allowances for certain costs, for instance, overhead expenses, which I have already mentioned, can be controlled. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are designed to prevent various forms of evasion of the Act. Clause 10, particularly, gives powers to prevent evasion by barter or by creating mort-


gages and pledges for the purpose of evasion.
Clause 12 provides for the appointment of inspectors. I can assure the House that their numbers will not be large, and that in administration we shall be careful that they cause as little disturbance and annoyance to the great bulk of the trade as is possible. Nevertheless, I am sure that we are right in asking for powers to appoint inspectors. The present Act relies too much upon complaints from the buyer; and under the present Bill we cannot fulfil our functions satisfactorily with out a certain number of inspectors to apprise us of that small number of cases in which traders are endeavouring dishonestly to evade the Bill. Under Clause 13, the Board of Trade may make orders which compel transactions to be covered by invoices. As the number of transactions which are undocumented is on the increase, and as that is one of the means used to evade the law, it is necessary to have the powers to call for the usual simple documents to be kept. Clause 14 completes the provisions of Clause 13 and gives the Board of Trade power to require books, accounts and records to be kept. There is no intention of imposing any new system: in the vast majority of cases it is not to alter any existing system of bookkeeping, but to require that some books should be kept in some cases, that this Clause is designed.
I would like to conclude, as I began, by saying that the objects at which this Bill aims are, I think, desired by everyone in the House, and indeed in the country. I suggest that the powers which we now seek are no wider than are necessary to fulfil those objects, and I have been in the House long enough, though not very long, to know that during the Committee stage the Government can count upon constructive collaboration to make the Measure a sensible and workable addition to the general economic policy which I have outlined.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If the President of the Board of Trade will allow me to say so, we have listened with very great pleasure to a most interesting speech. We have not had many opportunities of hearing the president of the Board of Trade; and if he

had now been speaking here for the first time I should say that I hope we shall hear many more such speeches from him, because he has laid out the subject in an exemplary way, which allows the House, first, to know where this new policy fits in with the general policy of the Government; secondly, to know what the proposal is; and, thirdly, to show what it does. I am sure that the House is indebted for this, and we shall in the main deal with the Measure sympathetically; because, on the major principles of the Bill, we are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, all agreed. Although there may be criticisms, and perhaps Amendments, in Committee, there can be very little said on the Second Reading except by way of approbation of the Government's intention to proceed further than they have already done in regulating prices in this country. Clearly, it is impossible to allow individual traders to get away with some of the practices which he has indicated in the course of his speech. I agree with his view that the bulk of the traders are endeavouring to carry out the very difficult conditions under which trade is carried on to-day honestly and honourably, but that, as he said, is no reason why we should not stamp upon such malpractices as those to which he has referred.
There are only one or two other points that I would like to mention. I am very glad to see that steps are being taken to protect the shop assistants, for instance, and others in a similar position, from what would otherwise be a very embarrassing position. It is clear that the shop assistant is absolutely under orders from the authority above, and I am very glad that it is a defence to his position that he is acting under the instructions of persons who are controlling him. I rather gather that there might be some question arise as to whether that protection is adequate, but that is a point we shall no doubt be able to consider later on with regard to the Bill.
The other criticism that I have heard, not so much of this Measure, but of the actions which hitherto the Board of Trade have taken, is that they do not get on with the job as fast as the general public would wish them to do. And I would like to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade that, if when this Bill becomes law, he has the powers that he has thought necessary, he should have no


hesitation in using them, and not only in using them effectively but using them promptly, so that there is no delay in bringing home to the recalcitrant persons their misdemeanours in this respect. It is suggested to me, running through the Clauses of this Bill, that there are various provisions which may make for delay. I hope that, while the Bill is passing through, if any of these should be proved, the Government will not hesitate to cut them out so that the apparatus can work as quickly as possible—the whole apparatus, for instance, by which local price committees report to the Central Price Committee, and then the Central Price Committee comes to the Board of Trade, and sees whether some of these processes cannot be short-circuited. I would not like to go into the details now, but I know that there is an opinion that in some cases that might be done to the advantage of symmetry and prompt action. I am sure that the President will agree that, in the enforcement of a law of this kind, promptness is of the essence of the scheme. Something that can perhaps be brought home to a man a month or a year afterwards is like whipping a dog for something he did a week ago, which, everybody knows, is a useless and absurd proceeding.
There is one other matter to which my attention has been specially directed, and that is with regard to the procedure for prosecution. The President of the Board of Trade will pardon me if I deal with the Scottish procedure, because that is the one that has been brought to my notice. It has been put to me that at present, before a prosecution can be instituted in Scotland, the local committee has to recommend it. The Central Price Regulation Committee has to approve of the recommendation, and then the Board of Trade have to do the same, and the Board of Trade next communicate with the Lord Advocate, and, if he approves of a prosecution, he has to instruct the Procurator Fiscal concerned in the committee's district, and the latter then has to make inquiries in order to supplement the local committee's investigation. All that represents, quite definitely, delay. The President may say that it is necessary delay, but it has been suggested to me that he should get rid of some of that procedure. It is suggested that there is no reason why in Scotland, where all prosecutions are at the instance

of the Crown authorities, the local committee should not been titled to communicate direct to the Procurator Fiscal, who would report to the Lord Advocate's Department and the latter would then determine whether or not there ought to be a prosecution, as in all other cases. There may be difficulties in that, but at any rate perhaps the President of the Board of Trade—I do not know whether he is responsible for the Scottish procedure or whether he does that through another Minister—will consider that point and see whether there is anything in it. I imagine that some similar arrangement may apply to England, though, of course, the procedure is different, because public prosecutions are not conducted in quite the same way in England as they are in Scotland.
Another point of which I would like to ask consideration is this: Who is really going to control the inspectors? A somewhat difficult situation will arise if you have local committees which are dealing with the local situation and which are naturally concerned with what is happening in local trading establishments, and if at the same time the Board of Trade have inspectors who are dealing with special districts who are not in any way responsible to the local committee, but who are responsible directly to themselves. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will consider it and at a suitable stage in our proceedings will tell us what precise relationship the local inspector has to the local committee. It is evident that, if the local committee is to function satisfactorily, at any rate it should be in touch with the local inspector, even if it cannot be decided that the inspector should be the definite servant of the local committee.
These are just one or two points for the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade, and I can only repeat what I said at the beginning, that the whole House will give consideration to this Bill, and that it will do what the President of the Board of Trade says, and will make purely constructive criticism on the Committee stage in an endeavour to see that this proposal is brought into operation as early as possible, and we shall certainly back up the President of the Board of Trade in using his powers effectively and promptly in order to do away with the kind of evil to which he has referred in his speech

Mr. Doland: I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), because he has confined himself primarily to the administrative side of this Measure. In speaking on this Bill, I must divulge that I am financially interested in the Measure, and 1 speak not from that personal side so much as I do from the fact that I am the President of the London and Suburban Traders' Federation and on the Board of Management of the National Chamber of Trade. I was very pleased to have been able to listen to the President of the Board of Trade—and I think that my fellow traders will be very pleased when they read it ultimately in the OFFICIAL REPORT —and hear him say that he considers that the average trader is honest. We have listened to a great deal on measures of this character that has been said on the side of the consumer, and the trader generally has been left a little out of the running. I think the President of the Board also said that admiration for traders generally during war-time liquidation is agreed. We are pleased, indeed, to know that, but this Measure has been justified to some extent by the President's giving some very glaring, and in my opinion extreme, examples of profiteering. Take, for instance, steel helmets. Nobody could justify the increased cost coming down from the raw material to the product that is handed over the counter. Again, of thermos flasks the same can be said. Nevertheless, I was sorry to hear the President stress these two examples to such an extent, because they are undoubtedly extreme.
At the same time I agree that the Measure before the House should be welcomed, not only by the trader, but the consumer, subject, of course, to certain safeguards about which I wish to confine my remarks. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—I do not know if I did so correctly—that the suggested method to be adopted in regard to fixing maximum prices was consultation with the Central Price Regulation Committee. If that is to be done, I hope it will not lead to criticisms, alterations and new regulations because somebody has found that a certain position is not covered in the Bill. If I may take a leaf out of the President's book and give an extreme example, I would refer to the necessity for consulta-

tion in regard to what I would term bespoke orders and goods. For instance. if a retailer receives a parcel from a manufacturer, wraps it up and sells it to the consumer, it would be a comparatively easy matter to produce a bill for that particular article, as the regulation demands. But how would the President deal with the case of a dressmaker who in making a dress has, perhaps, to go to a large firm in Oxford Street to obtain a bill for a certain amount of material, go to another place to obtain a bill for frilling and to another to obtain an invoice for buttons? All these invoices must be put together, before they can be produced to the consumer. Then there is the question of labour and of the number of persons necessary in order to make a particular shirt or suit. How many will have to sign a chit to show that they have worked on a particular order?
I welcome this Bill, and I hope it will give due justice to the retailer, and that it will give him a modicum of profit, or, if he has no profit at all, will pay his expenses so that he is not completely-closed down. I am interested in Clauses 1, 6, 12 and 13. Clause 1 gives the Board of Trade power to fix by Order maximum prices for goods specified in the Order by reference to cost prices and margins of profit. I hope; the President will consult not only the bodies mentioned but the traders themselves. because they can be of assistance. We do not want. as we have seen in the last few days with the egg control scheme. to see these regulations having to be so altered that they are far from what is intended now. So I urge the Minister to take into consideration all the necessary opinions of traders, who recognise the necessity for certain measures of control. We are anxious that the President should obtain full knowledge of the conditions to be taken into account when apportioning cost prices of articles which may materially affect the margin of profit.
Cost and the margin of profit are two of the most important things in this Bill, which does not deal with Stock Exchange or banking transactions. Clause 6 contains, amendments to the principal Act, and I understand that the draft must be approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I take it that the draft would be some time after certain orders are made or would be during the Committee stage.


Clause 13, as I read it, is so far-reaching in its implications that for bespoke garments—boots, tailoring and dress-making —it will be well-nigh impossible to implement it. When a customer asked for invoices for every article which had been sold, it would take almost an army of accountants and clerks to comply with the request. I may be misreading the Clause, and, if so, I hope the President will reassure me on the point. There are many articles sold by a retailer for which it is easy to produce invoices from his file, but where so many things have to be taken into consideration in the making of a particular article it is impossible to collate the invoices to show the actual cost of the article.
Clause 14 should be all that is necessary; Clause 13 is not necessary. Clause 14 would, I believe, give ample opportunity for people to carry out the intentions of the President. However, I shall be given an opportunity of discussing this Bill at a later stage, so I will confine myself to these few remarks, with the hope that the President will be able to extend to the trader the due which is his in the selling of retail goods. I trust that we can make this Measure practical and that the persons engaged in the affected industries will be consulted— and when I say "consulted" I mean from not only one end of the trade. I hope each particular branch of industry will be given the opportunity of voicing its opinions to ensure that no mistakes are made after the Bill has passed into law.

Mrs. Hardie: I wish to say a few words to welcome the introduction of the Bill. I am pleased that the 1939 prices are not to be taken as the basis for the operation of the Bill. I believe it was wrong to take those prices as a basis, because evasion was easy. We know that in many cases, after the last Act was passed, when one went to buy certain brands of goods—for instance, stockings or gloves—one found that the manufacturers had changed the brands. Consequently, it was very difficult to keep a check on the increase in prices. Moreover, in some instances the prices were very high already, and this led to unfairness.
With regard to middlemen, I am glad that some restriction is to be placed on the number of hands through which goods pass. In the past, the manufacturers

supplied their goods through wholesalers, but latterly there has been a tendency for them to supply goods directly to the retailers. I hope this practice will be encouraged, because the fewer the hands through which the goods pass, the better. In checking the prices of food and other things, one finds that certain people make a profit out of the goods passing through their hands, and the Government seem to have the idea that this should be continued. I hope it will be discouraged, because the rationing and regulation of goods of various kinds makes it unnecessary for the bulk of them to pass through the wholesaler's hands. I hope that in fixing prices the Government will not be too tender towards those people who hitherto have made a profit out of the goods passing through their hands, and that prices will be fixed very largely on the basis of the manufacturer supplying the retailer directly, and thereby keeping down prices.
I want to say a word or two in sympathy with the retailers. For a long time I was in the retail trade, and therefore, I have an interest in the shopkeeping side of this matter, apart from the consumers. I realise that the retailers have a difficult task now. They have certain overhead charges; and although it docs not come within the scope of the Bill, I suggest that something ought to be done to revise the high rents which many retailers have to pay at the present time. If the retailers are to be given a sufficient profit to pay their overheads, particularly extortionate rents, and to retain a reasonable profit for themselves, it will come back on the consumers, because it will not be possible to fix reasonable prices. Consequently, I think the Government ought to do something to revise the rates of rent, in view of the restriction in supplies to retailers.
Those are the main points that I wan I to make on the Second Reading. Then-may be points of detail which I shall want to raise at another stage. We have been told about the difficulties of legal procedure in Scotland. I am not so concerned about the working of the penalties attached to the Bill; I believe that shopkeepers are a fairly law-abiding section of the community, and most of them will obey the law, whatever it may be. I am more concerned that prices should be fixed on a reasonable basis, that there


should not be too much allowance for the middlemen, and that the Board of Trade should raise with the appropriate Department the question of a revision of the rents which shopkeepers have to pay.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the President of the Board of Trade on the introduction of this Bill, but I should like to ask him why we have had to wait so long for it. The defects of the existing Act have been manifest for many months. If I may, at this early stage of my remarks, disclose my personal interest in the matter, I will tell the House that I am the independent chairman of the accountants and experts committee of the voluntary control panel of the rubber industry. In that capacity I have had placed upon me the task of advising the industry how it should carry out the Act. I have prepared memoranda and conducted deputations, and I have had a great many transactions with the Central Price Regulation Committee. An example of avoiding the spirit of the Act did arise in the industry in connection with the sale of boots. Perhaps the matter has been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice. A quantity of boots was sold between three or four members of the same family, passing from one to the other, and in each case the retailer's profit in terms of money was added, and the boots were eventually offered to the public carrying three or four retailers' profits. The matter was brought to the attention of the Central Price Regulation Committee, and I went to see the chairman about it, and it was brought to the attention of the Board of Trade. We found ourselves completely helpless in the matter. It is only fair to say that this matter was brought to the attention of the authorities, not as a result of a complaint from the public, but by the manufacturer himself.
As a result of my experience of the working of the 1939 Act and my dealings with the Central Price Regulation Committee, I should like to add my commendation of the work done by that Committee. It is a representative body, it works assiduously, and, as far as I know, it has always done its work efficiently and courteously. I have always found the chairman and the staff ready to be helpful at all times to those who had to consult

them on matters arising from the Act. The Committee has done its work with a minimum of red tape, but I do not think the Board of Trade have treated it as generously as they might have done. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee needs a bigger staff in order to carry out its duties efficiently. I suggest also that the Board of Trade have not always been as helpful as they might have been in assisting the Committee to carry out its work. I do not think it is necessary to go into details, but surely it is unnecessary, when an efficient Committee has fully investigated matters, that the work should be done over again by the Board of Trade.
The question of the enforcement of the provisions over the country as a whole has already been touched upon, and questions have been asked about the exact position of the inspectors who are to be appointed under Clause 12. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we shall no longer depend upon private complaints to cause the Act to be carried out. The curious thing about these complaints is that certain articles seem to attract complaints more readily than others, and certain parts of the country seem to be more alive than others to their rights under the Act. That is noticeably the case north of the Tweed and west of the Severn. The position of the inspectors ought to be clearer, and, I submit for the President's consideration, these inspectors should be at the disposal and under the control of the Central Price Control Committee. The Act which this Bill seeks to improve provides:
It shall be the duty of the Central Price Regulation Committee to exercise a general supervision over the enforcement of the provisions of this Act.
We should be carrying out the spirit and intentions of the 1939 Act if the inspectorate was placed under the control of the Central Committee. One other matter arises under the Schedule of the 1939 Act. I wonder why the President of the Board of Trade has not thought it wise to put these provisions, or amended provisions, into this Bill. There is a number of difficulties, both in interpretation and in application, under several heads of the items of permitted increases in the First Schedule. I will refer to one only, and one which has been mentioned on more than one occasion during the course of this Debate—that is, the spreading of overhead expenses. This House ought


to have had an opportunity now, because it is urgent, of discussing how that question is to be tackled. It is the consumer who has to pay in the end, and we are entitled to be told now whether the intention is to prevent profiteering and inflation in the exercise of these powers giving a right to these increases, or whether it is the intention by allowing them to continue, to subsidise in a largely uncompetitive market a wasteful and uneconomic distributive system. However, the President of the Board of Trade has seen fit not to bring this to the House for consideration now, although it is urgent, but to have Clause 6 included in the Bill with its powers to amend the Schedule, subject to submission of the draft Order for the approval of both Houses. I do not suppose for one moment the President of the Board of Trade will dispute that this matter is urgent, but he has not seen fit to bring it into the Bill. Why does he not at least suggest that the procedure is one which will not involve another protracted delay? It is a well-recognised form of procedure to say that an Order shall be laid on the Table for a certain number of days before coming into effect, unless there is a Prayer against it. I ask the President to tell us why he does not put in the Bill, and recommend a proposal which guarantees a good deal less delay in an urgent matter?

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire unhesitatingly to welcome this Bill and to make a few observations upon it and upon the issues raised. I should like the President of the Board of Trade, between now and the Committee stage, to consider the advisability of publishing a White Paper, in order that the House may be better informed about the working and experience of the price regulation committees. I should like him to consider the need for setting out in this White Paper the number of complaints received, the number of prosecutions, the amount of the fines and other actions taken. I make the suggestion in order that the House, when it meets in Committee, can benefit from the experience of the administration of the present Act so that we can detect its weaknesses. It would enable hon. Members, such as the hon. Member who spoke from the point of view of the traders, and other people representing the various interests, to mould the present Bill into an Act of Parliament which will

deal with a situation of which some people are trying to take advantage. I hope that suggestion will be considered.
In addition, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be good enough to consider the advisability of putting a few typical examples of the kind to which he referred in this White Paper. He dealt with certain kinds of thermos flasks, and instances could be given of other types of vacuum flask, showing the game that has been played. We have had actual experience of this kind of thing, and there are other examples which could be given. I heard that during a certain serious situation there was a great demand, in industrial centres in particular, for thermos flasks so that people could have a drink of tea without leaving their air-raid shelter. I understand that action was taken to prevent people exploiting that demand, but this is the way they got round it. Instead of selling thermos flasks or vacuum flasks as one item, they sold them in a container with one or two other things and so obtained an increased price. That kind of thing ought not to be encouraged and ought to be stopped, but I would point out that if this Bill, when it becomes an Act, has nothing more than a preventive value, it will be of considerable importance.
I have a fair knowledge of what has been taking place from the consumers' point of view, having had these matters reported to trades councils, and it is surprising the friction that has been aroused as a result of this sort of thing taking place. The President of the Board of Trade gave us only one or two examples but there are thousands of other examples which could be given, which, I hope, will be shown in the White Paper if it is decided to publish it. I have had my attention drawn already to large stores which have large stocks many of which suddenly become shop-soiled, and therefore are second-hand. Many of them have larger stores than ever of travellers' samples, which also become shop-soiled. Will Clause 7 deal with this kind of thing, and can the action be made retrospective? I have here a cutting from a large advertisement appearing in certain national newspapers asking purchasers to visit them and, if they have not sufficient coupons to purchase certain commodities, they will give credit. Those are concrete examples which show the need for a Bill


of this kind. In my view, it ought to be called an anti-profiteering Bill, and in a situation of this kind it is needed. I should like to ask what will be considered a reasonable margin of profit
.
I also suggest that there is a need for recasting local price regulation committees. I think the National Price Regulation Committee has functioned as efficiently as could possibly be expected under the present Act, but the local price regulation committees, which are at present above the people, should be more organically of the people. The more you can associate the ordinary people with this machinery, the better as far as concerns the maintenance of confidence in the administration of an Act of this kind. I should like representatives of the Committee and inspectors to pay visits as often as possible to local organisations like chambers of commerce, trades councils and the Co-operative Women's Guild. They could see what is taking place in the localities, and it would give them an opportunity of asking questions and would go a long way towards eliminating suspicion. The burden of proof has been the difficulty. In my experience the best types of people hesitate to give others away. This shows the need for inspectors, and also for action in the way I have indicated. Could it not be made more definite that the burden of proof is to be put more and more upon the inspectors and other administrators rather than leaving it to individuals to report? There is reluctance among ordinary people to report things, because they have an idea that it is hardly playing the game and is hitting below the belt. While we know that it is not so, you will have to do a large amount of pioneering work before you eliminate that idea among ordinary people. Clause 11 deals with enforcement. I should like to ask whether the local machine is working satisfactorily and how often members of local committees attend. Could we have a reply to those questions in the White Paper? Under Clause 12 is it intended that the inspectors should attend the local committee when possible?
How is it intended to ascertain the basic price, and what allowances are to be made as far as contingencies are concerned? What are the overhead charges that are to

be allowed. because those who have experience of the effect of overhead charges know what can be done? Will advertising be allowed as an overhead charge? Is advertising considered necessary? I should like to know whether in the opinion of the Board of Trade advertising is necessary to the extent that some people are carrying it on. Is it necessary that advertising should be allowed to be carried on just for the preservation of goodwill? I have had instances brought to my knowledge where some concerns are still advertising in order to maintain their prestige. It is called prestige Advertising. One Government Department is seriously concerned about the amount of expenditure on the maintenance of prestige and goodwill by certain firms. The Government are giving out more and more orders. Is the Board of Trade watching that the overhead charges on Government orders are not being pushed up in order to keep down the overhead charges on civilian necessities?
I was pleased to hear the President refer to the responsibility of the wholesale trade in regard to increased prices. I have figures and official reports which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the wholesale trade which has benefited, generally speaking, as the result of increased prices. In February Mr. Ebby Edwards, the General Secretary0f the Mineworkers' Federation. issued a report which shows the importance of the appeal which I am making. It shows the need for this Bill becoming law as soon as possible. It also shows the need for the publication of the White Paper in order that on the Committee stage all of us can pool our experiences so that we can detect the weaknesses in the Bill. The cash earnings per man-shift between 1939 and 1940 increased in South Wales by 14 per cent., in Lancashire by 20 per cent. and in North Staffordshire by 16 per cent., while the cost of living increased by 22 per cent. The point I want to drive home, especially from our point of view, is that the time-lag between wages and cost of living is not generally appreciated. The position is even worse in many industries. The miners have a cost of living agreement and they are, therefore, bound to be in a relatively better position in relation to the cost of living compared with those trades that have no agreement.
In a period of war or inflation wages never keep pace with increased prices, and the effect on the workers would be even more severe were it not for the action of the trade unions. At the present time the cost of living has increased 29 per cent., while wage rates have increased by only 18 per cent. I have here the latest publication of the Royal Economic Society issued this week, showing the change in the cost of living during the whole of the last war, the cost of living index and other comparisons. These prove beyond doubt that wages were not responsible for the inflation spiral, because they always lagged many points behind the cost of living and in percentage comparisons were even worse.
A Bill of this kind, therefore, is important in order to prevent a similar situation developing in this war. I have made an analysis of the family budgets compiled in the Ministry of Labour inquiry, and I calculate that this Bill will cover at least 17s. of the weekly expenditure of the average family. It is on the goods covered by this expenditure that the greatest increases have taken place. The President claimed that the Government had a comprehensive policy. He certainly did justice in his statement to-day to the Government's position. I said to a number of my hon. Friends, who regretted they could not hear his speech owing to their being called away, what I thought of it. I only wish that other speeches were made in the same clear way, for I am convinced that the understanding of the Government's policy would be better than it is if they were.
In my view, however, the policy is not comprehensive enough, and I would like to put forward one or two suggestions for the consideration of the Government. These suggestions are in line with the policy of organisations representing a big section of the community which is making a great contribution to the national effort. I urge that there should be no political interference with wage and salary arrangements, that prices should be pegged, that margins should be fixed on the lowest minimum consistent with people covering their costs, that a 6 per cent. limitation of dividends should be introduced, and that the policy of subsidies where required should be continued. This policy, I believe, would be a real contribution to the war effort. When this Bill becomes

an Act and the Board of Trade receives the power, it needs to be ruthlessly applied. The cost of living has now increased 29 per cent. since September, 1939, and in addition Government subsidies have amounted to £90,000,000. The increase in the main is due to the prices of goods dealt with by this Bill. Wage increases have lagged well behind and, therefore, the need for this Bill is well proved. I hope that between now and the Committee stage we shall all pool our experiences in order to make it as watertight as possible so that it will be a real contribution to the war effort.

Mr. Leslie: This Bill should be welcomed by the House, seeking as it does not only to protect the consumer, but to protect the honest trader against unscrupulous competitors. I believe that traders in general desire to do the right thing by the purchasing public, but there is no denying that there are certain doubtful characters who seek to evade whatever laws are passed. I am concerned about the position of the assistants under the Bill. What safeguards have employés who act on verbal instructions from their firms in defiance of the Bill and are prosecuted? When I was secretary of my trade union we often had cases where assistants were prosecuted for contravening some Act, and it was found that they had acted on verbal instructions from their employers and not written instructions, so that no evidence could be produced against the firm. The employé so prosecuted was removed to another branch or often dismissed in order to throw dust in the eyes of the purchasing public and to show the public that the employé had acted without the knowledge of the firm. The firm's reputation was thereby safeguarded, but the assistant's reputation was damned and he had small chance of securing a situation elsewhere. In all such cases the employer should be placed in the witness box and put on oath so that the court could make sure who was the real criminal in contravening the Act.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I wish to ask the President one or two quetions affecting not so much a new industry, but a group associated with a particular craft which are looking forward to a measure of prosperity in the next month or two. They have already begun


in a manner which can be seen by anyone who cares to visit the shops. I refer to the renovation of suits and the turning of suits and ladies' costumes. We are all having to recognise the economies which we shall have to practice by reason of the Rationing Order. With the help of an efficient tailor a suit which has been worn for three or four years may be made to appear quite new. One Member of this House told me yesterday that the coat he was wearing was seven years old and that he was going to have it turned and hoped to wear it for another three or four years. But in recent weeks I have noticed a big change in the charges for these services. There can be no doubt that those in the trade are realising the possibilities of what I may call profiteering. They have already started what is now called a "racket." Prices have been increased by almost 100 per cent.
Then there is the group of invisible menders. They certainly perform a very useful service, but I warn the Minister that attention should be paid to their charges, and the public should be protected against exploitation. In the last day or two I have seen one or two ladies going stockingless; others are saying, "It does not matter now if we do have ladders in our stockings"; and yet others say they can get their laddered stockings repaired at shops which cater for that work. But these last-named are finding, much to their annoyance, that whereas a few months ago the charge for repairing a pair of stockings was 1s. or 1s. 6d. it has now gone up by 100 per cent. I hope particular attention will be paid to those businesses. The other group to which I should like to refer are laundries. I think the Minister said a few days ago that he intended to fix maximum prices for laundry work. I know that trade board rates operate in laundries and that generally speaking laundry employers act fairly and give a square deal to the general public, but there are some who cater for the repair as well as for the washing of garments, and I am afraid that a large measure of exploitation is taking place and that there will be ample scope for it in the future, because of the anxiety of people to make their clothes last much longer. I understand that inspectors are to be appointed to deal with this matter, and they will have plenty of scope for

their activities in the three groups of trades to which I have referred. I would ask the Minister to indicate his intentions respecting those groups.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I wish to utter only two or three sentences on this very desirable Bill. It is divided roughly into two parts, one part dealing with the fixing of maximum prices. I think it contains more penalties for those who offend against the law than probably any Bill which has been brought before Parliament. When the previous Measure on the same lines was before us in 1939 I raised a point with which I am glad to see the Government have now dealt. My point was that when a shop assistant or anybody employed by a shopkeeper contravenes this law at the suggestion of the employer, though not on his direct instructions, it is unfair to penalise the employé. In the middle of Clause 1 it states:
It shall be a defence for a person charged with a contravention of the said sub-section to prove that, in relation to the matter in respect of which he is charged, he acted in the course of his employment as a servant or agent of another person on the instructions of his employer or of some other specified person.
That is a very reasonable provision, and, of course, I welcome it, because I think it was inserted as a consequence, very largely, of our discussions on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1939. There is a similar provision in Clause 16, at the foot of page 12 of the Bill. I am pleased to see the Solicitor-General present. I do not like at any time to challenge his wide knowledge, and I would like him to tell us what is the position in the case where an employécontravenes this law in the course of his ordinary duties. Is not the employer in that case responsible for the acts of his employés? The words in Clause 16 to which I would call attention are:
Where a person, not being a body corporate,".
I suppose that a co-operative society would be a body corporate. There is no individual person in a co-operative society. It is a society made up of members employing assistants behind the counter who will in actual practice have to carry out this law. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten me as to what will be the position of a co-operative society employé who may violate this law? You cannot very well sue an indi-


vidual employer in a co-operative society. You have, I suppose, to prosecute the society as a whole, which in fact is an abstract thing.
Finally, I would say that I welcome this Bill because I do not think that Parliament has ever realised that more tricks can be resorted to in the distributive trades than in any other industry. The ramifications in the handling of goods between the producer, the wholesaler, the retailer and the customer are colossal. How large a number of people are employed in distribution in this country is not commonly known. I have said on several occasions, and I repeat it now, that including shop assistants and shopkeepers there are not less than 2,500,000 in this country earning their livelihood in distribution alone. As has been said, the vast majority of them are playing fair by their customers, but those who want to break the law find it very much easier to do so in the distributive trades than it would be on the manufacturing side of industry, and therefore I regard this Bill as a very necessary one. Finally, I would ask whether, in analysing the prosecutions which have already taken place it has been ascertained how many shop assistants have been prosecuted and whether in some or most of the cases the shop assistant has had to pay the fine, because in some cases it ought, in my view, to have fallen on the shopkeeper and not upon the assistant. Having said that, I welcome the Bill and trust that it will bring about the desired results.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I should like to deal first with the speech made by the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies). He raised a legal point and asked a direct question on which I have sought the best available guidance. It was very good guidance indeed. I am informed that the words "corporate body" would cover a Cooperative society. The hon. Member raised the same point that was raised by one of his hon. Friends about the position of shop assistants. It is our intention to prevent shop assistants from being penalised for offences which really ought to be brought on to the shoulders of the employer. I am informed that the words in the Bill are adequate for this purpose, but, if hon. Members want to amplify or amend them, any words they like to bring

forward for the Committee stage will be sympathetically considered. The hon. Member also asked whether we had analyses of prosecutions and other figures about the work of the price regulation committees. Those analyses have been made, but I cannot give them now. Between now and the Committee stage we will look up the points which the hon. Member raised. If a particular point calls for any Amendment and we can make it in an orderly manner, we shall not withhold any information about it from the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) opened his speech with a word of commendation for the general principle of the Measure, which was most gratifying to my right hon. Friend. He said that he felt we had not got on with the job—or rather, that the job had not been got on with— under the Act of 1939. I do not feel that that is very fair criticism. The Act of 1939 has worked and has served a most useful purpose. It is true there have not been very many prosecutions under it. If I gave the figure of prosecutions, it might give the impression that nothing had been done. After all, the effect of the activities which have been carried on has been deterrent, and far more valuable than a series of prosecutions in individual cases. The right hon. Gentleman raised a point of Scottish law which I cannot deal with now. A note has been made, and the point will be dealt with in due course. He asked us who was to control the inspectors, and that point was raised also by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). The inspectors will be, of course, officers of the Board of Trade. The Board must definitely be in control, but the inspectors will, equally definitely, work in with the local price regulation committees and, through them, with the Central Price Regulation Committee. There will in no way be a segregation of their particular services in this regard. Although they will not be members of the price regulation committees, they will be working very closely with them, and will be more or less at their beck and call in investigating specific complaints.
The hon. Lady the Member for Spring-burn (Mrs. Hardie) raised two points. The first was about middlemen. She felt there might be so many middlemen


whose profits would accumulate to the disadvantage of the consumer. That point has been understood and has been dealt with in this Measure. I think her point will be adequately met when the Bill becomes an Act. She raised a question also about the rent paid by the retailer and how hardly the rent might press upon him, such high rates being charged as to affect the price which he would have to charge for his goods. That point is rather outside the scope of the Bill, but it is very much inside the scope of the Committee which we set up a little time ago to consider the whole position of the retailer. No doubt that Committee. which now has a multiplicity of things to consider, will get on to this subject and will deal with it in any report which it may submit. Reverting to the subject of shop assistants, I can now say that in no case has there been a prosecution of any shop assistant.
Several points were raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen. He said that price regulation committees needed larger staffs and that the Board have not always been very helpful. It is refreshing to find a Member of Parliament saying that a Government Department needs a larger staff. The usual criticism is very much in the other direction. If it is found desirable for a committee to have a larger staff. the chairman will not be denied any extra assistance he needs. As to the Board not being helpful, I am sure the hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension. The Board are most helpful in this matter. as in all other matters. He raised a point about the amendment of the Schedule to the principal Act. He asked, "Why could we not put our Amendments in now instead of leaving them to be laid on the Table of the House?" He made a rather novel point, the opposite of the point which is normally made in this House. As a rule, the House, justly and properly jealous of its own rights, is anxious to have a last say upon any alteration in a Statute or any Order which is made, and therefore welcomes the procedure of the affirmative Resolution. He made the point that the affirmative Resolution is apt to be a slow method of dealing with these questions, and is therefore objectionable. I do not think that that is so. If any Amendment to the Schedule is generally acceptable to

the House, an affirmative Resolution becomes a mere formality. If, on the other hand, it is controversial, hon. Members agree that it should be threshed out on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member says, "Why should you not put the alterations in now?" The reason is that we can put in what we know now, but our knowledge is increasing the whole time. We want to have the power to make alterations as they become necessary or desirable from time to time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) raised several points which were listened to with great attention, because the House is well aware that he is intimately connected with the trading section of industry. One of his main points was on Clause 13, and he seemed to think that the provisions of that Clause were going to put a very onerous burden on the retailer, who would have to supply a host of particulars to his customers. That is not so at all. These particular provisions deal entirely with transactions between wholesalers and retailers, between one trader and another; in that connection I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is not unreasonable to ask for much fuller details than would be appropriate between a retailer and his customers.

Mr. Doland: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman concludes his explanation, may I refer him to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which quite clearly says:
Under Clause 13 the Board of Trade may-make orders requiring the buyer of any description of price controlled goods to demand and the seller to deliver invoices showing such particulars as are necessary for facilitating enforcement of the Act.
I take it that in the course of the Committee stage or otherwise the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make it quite clear that that does not apply to customers and retailers but to wholesalers and manufacturers.

Captain Waterhouse: That is clearly the intention of this Clause, and, if it is necessary to make it still clearer, words will be put in. These requirements are as between wholesaler and retailer, that is, between two traders, and not between retailer and public.

Sir Robert Tasker: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the question of discounts such as are


referred to in Clause 4, as they vary from 2½ per cent, to 27½ per cent.?

Captain Waterhouse: The opening words of the Clause are:
The Board of Trade may by Order make provision …
When the Board of Trade takes power of that sort, I can assure my hon. Friend that they can put into the Order very much what they like, and they will deal with that particular point if it becomes necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting asked for consultation with traders. Clearly, that will be done. We are only too anxious to collaborate with traders and get their help and advice on any relevant questions.

Mr. Doland: My point was that the co-operation of traders should be sought respecting their own individual trades and not, for instance, an ironmonger giving advice on tailoring.

Captain Waterhouse: As far as possible, that is already done, but I admit that when committees are being set up men may be put on them of excellent qualifications but whose experience is confined to one narrow field, thus making an opening for the sort of criticism my hon. Friend has in mind. My hon. Friend also raised several other points which I think might be dealt with on the Committee stage.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), in a most interesting and thoughtful contribution, asked that a White Paper should be issued on the activities of the price regulation committees. He wanted a good many details to be given, but he agreed as to the urgency of getting this Bill through. I am afraid those two things do not hang together very well. Were we to issue a White Paper giving all the details he asked for, it would delay the passing of this Bill by a very considerable period. Therefore, while we sympathise with his request, we must express our inability to comply with it. He asked also whether the provision dealing with second-hand goods would be retrospective. Certainly it is retrospective, in Clause 3 (2a) the Board may refuse to register any second-hand dealer who in the past has charged excessive prices. That gives them the retrospective authority for which the hon. Member asks. He then asked that the local price regulation committees might be recast. Clearly, that is not a matter for this Bill, and I hope he will forgive me for not

dealing with it now. He asked further that the burden of proof should be on the inspectors and not on the public. That is one of the main objects of this Bill, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. So far, the public have had to provide all the evidence, and it has been very difficult indeed. When these inspectors have been appointed, they will deal with breaches of the Act when they are found. I think I have dealt with the bulk of the points raised, although there have been several other minor Committee points which will be dealt with at their proper stage. I am grateful to the House for the reception given to this Bill, to which I hope a Second Reading will be given.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day. —[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereafter referred to as ' the new Act ') to make further provision to prevent excessive prices being charged for goods and excessive charges being made for performing services in relation to goods (including hiring and subjecting to a process) and to amend the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the new Act and any increase in the expenses of the Board under the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, which is attributable to the passing of the new Act." — (King's recommendation signified.) — [Mr. Lyttelton.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the under-mentioned areas, namely: —

(1) the Borough of Huntingdon;
(2) the City of Liverpool; and
(3) the Urban District of Litherland,

copies of which were presented to this House on 17th June, be approved." — [Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — JUSTICES (SUPPLEMENTAL LIST) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a small Bill, a completely un-controversial Bill, and I think a good Bill —little and good. It may not have any direct bearing upon our war effort, but in that it affects the administration of justice it is a not unimportant Measure. It deals with the magistrates, of whom there are some 20,000 in this country, and let us remember that something like 95 per cent. of all the criminal cases in this country are tried before those magistrates. Outside London they dispose of something like 500,000 cases involving trial per year.
I think it only right to say that, disposing as they do of this vast number of cases, in a tremendous number of cases they gave complete satisfaction, and because I am introducing a Bill which modifies in some respect the existing law, I do not want it to be thought that I am casting any aspersion upon that body of people who are rendering, and have rendered, most valuable public service. There are, of course, exceptional cases—very exceptional cases—which from time to time standout. There are the very rare cases of a magistrate, a justice of the peace, getting into some trouble or other, some moral trouble, or some criminal case, which necessitates his removal from the Bench. These are very rare cases indeed. There is a commoner class of case, very different, where a magistrate, suffering from what we are all suffering from to some degree—getting older—is perhaps no longer able to hear as well as he did, and is no longer as fit as he used to be to conduct his business as a magistrate. We have all known cases of this sort of trouble from time to time. It is a very invidious thing, if the Lord Chancellor wants to remove such a magistrate, to have to apply to him the same machinery that he would apply to those very rare and wholly different cases where a magistrate has done something disgraceful and discreditable.
Various solutions have been sought, to get rid of this trouble. There is a peculiar fact of human nature; I suppose

we do not always ourselves recognise the limitations and disadvantages that come from advancing age. We are apt to think, when we are no longer hearing quite so well as we used to hear, that we hear just as well and that witnesses are not speaking so loudly. However, Lord Hailsham, when he was Lord Chancellor, evolved a very useful scheme. He circularised all the justices, suggesting that if and when a justice thought that his powers in any respect were failing, he should apply of his own volition to be put on a Supplemental List, and a very considerable number did apply to be put on the Supplemental List. The effect of being on that Supplemental List is that a magistrate no longer sits in court to adjudicate, or hear cases, but is still entitled to take part, and does, in the ordinary administrative work which forms a very large and valuable part of the work of magistrates, and he retains the dignity and prestige of being still a member of the Bench. Instead of actually having two lists, one of them a Supplemental List, there is only one list, but by a note against a name it can be seen whether a magistrate is on the list that adjudicates in court or on the other list which concerns itself with administrative work.
There have been cases of people who ought to have applied and who did not apply. I am familiar with one case—a local bench where there were four magistrates, all of whom had rendered most useful public service and who had become rather deaf. One of them was particularly deaf. The three magistrates who were the least deaf of the four were quite prepared to have themselves placed on the Supplemental List, but the fourth, the very deaf one, being convinced that people would not speak up, would not have his name put on the List. When his three colleagues heard that the fourth, whose case was much worse than their own, was not willing, they all dug their toes in, and said that none of them would go. We propose that there shall be a statutory arrangement for this Supplemental List, instead of its being merely a voluntary one. We hope and believe that, as in the past, justices will readily apply to have their names put on the Supplemental List, so that they will cease to adjudicate in court, but will perform administrative functions. The Lord Chancellor, under Clause 1, Sub-section.


(3) is given power, where he is satisfied, with regard to any justice that, by reason of his age or infirmity or other like cause —obviously not dealing with what I might call moral questions at all; if it is such a case he takes the person's name off—may, if he likes direct that the name of the justice be entered on the Supplemental List.

Mr. Mander: From where does he get his information?

The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor does not generally suffer from a paucity of information. His trouble is to winnow out, from among the multiplicity of information he gets, the chaff from the grain, and I have no doubt— in fact, I know—he does frequently communicate with Lords Lieutenant, who give him the benefit of their advice and information. This is the proposal of this scheme; it is to continue the Supplemental List on what is now to be a statutory basis—to enable justices to apply, as heretofore, to go on the Supplemental List, with the result I have indicated, but to confer on the Lord Chancellor the right to place a man's name on the Supplemental List, which will have the same effect as if he had voluntarily applied to do so. There is no sort of disgrace or stigma attached to this Supplemental List. I hope no one will regard it as a kind of black list. The proposal, I know, has been approved in all quarters, and I hope the House will let us now have the Second Reading, and we can consider on the Committee stage any question that may arise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day. — [Mr. Whiteley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — RUDOLF HESS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Silverman: On 10th June I asked the Prime Minister:
Whether he can now state the results of the investigation into the purpose of the

arrival in this country of Rudolf Hess; whether Hess brought with him any proposals indicating how the problems of Europe might, in his view, be solved; whether any reply to such proposals has been made or is contemplated; whether such proposals or reply will be published; and whether he will indicate the general lines of the Government's own proposals for the settlement of Europe after the war, so as to repair its ravages and prevent its recurrence?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) asked another Question on a related subject, and, answering both Questions together, the Prime Minister said:
I have no statement to make about this person at the present time: but His Majesty's Government have, of course, kept the United States Government informed on the subject of his flight to this country.
In a supplementary, I then asked whether the House was
to infer that this prominent Nazi leader came to this country without any serious purpose whatever; and if he had such a purpose, why are the people of this country not entitled to know what it was?
The Prime Minister replied:
I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) asked when the Prime Minister hoped to make a statement, he was told that the Prime Minister did not quite know; that
If at any time the Government think a statement is necessary, or that it would be advantageous, it will be made." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1941; cols. 29-30, Vol. 372.]
Being—as I hope the House will think, not unreasonably—dissatisfied with that answer, I gave notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I gave notice to the Prime Minister, through the usual channels, that, if convenient, I would raise the matter to-day. Although I observe that the Prime Minister has not been able to be present, I make no complaint about that. I understand that the Government are represented, and that some reply will be vouchsafed. Rather more than a month ago an event occurred which I think the whole world regarded as sensational. The Government at that time, so far as I can understand from the statements made on their behalf—not in this House, for they never make statements on behalf of the Government in this House nowadays, although they make them in New York City or in the City of


London, or anywhere but to the representatives of the people duly elected to this sovereign assembly—also regarded the event as sensational. Indeed, why should they not? If the Minister of State, shall we say, who was at that time still Minister of Aircraft Production, had gone to one of his factories, and, with or with out the leave of the Government, had taken a Spitfire or a Hurricane, and had landed at Berchtesgaden, I think the world would have regarded that as being sensational. I think that the propaganda department of the German Government, which is so much more imaginative and efficient than our own —

Sir Robert Tasker: And lying.

Mr. Silverman: Unfortunately, in modern propaganda the art of lying has become highly developed everywhere. What we are dealing with to-day is not anybody's lying or anybody's imagination, but what is a fact. I invite the House to consider what use the German Government would have made of it if the corresponding fact had taken place in Germany, and I have used what I hope the House will think a fair example of what such a corresponding fact would have been. Imagine if the Deputy-Leader of the Government of this country had, by night, taken upon himself the perils of flying a machine which he had never flown before, specially equipped with devices that the ordinary machine had not got, and had landed by parachute at Berchtesgaden. The Germans would have made much better use of that for their purposes than we have made of this sensational event for ours. What has been said so far? On one occasion, the Minister without Portfolio, speaking at Deptford, said:
When a man occupying such an important official position in the Nazi hierarchy as Hess flees his country and puts himself in the hands of the enemy, it looks as though all is not well on the German home front. Disunity, doubt and disillusionment are growing, and will continue to grow within the German Reich. The Nazi foundation upon which Germany's grandiose edifice of military aggression rests has begun to show signs of internal stress and strain. I will not say it is cracking, but it is certainly becoming chipped. That is all to the good, but we must not allow particular instances to turn us for a single moment from our own resolute purpose.

The Minister of Home Security, speaking at Hackney, in his own constituency, said that he would give a few hard facts about Hess. He said:
Hess, Hitler's right-hand man, is, like the rest of them, a brutal thug, whose hands, like his master's, are stained with some of the worst political crimes of modern times. Hess takes his share of guilt for the murder of hundreds of his comrades in 1934. So highly did Hitler think of his peculiar capacities that he made it his task to out-Gestapo the Gestapo. This gangster is now in our hands. He is going to stay in our hands. It does not matter what kind of animal he is: whether he is Rat No. 1 or a Trojan horse, or just a baby panda sent over in the hope of finding innocents over here to play with, he is caged. Whatever his reasons for coming here the German people, to put it mildly, are very much shaken by the whole episode.
The Lord Chancellor made a speech to a similar effect. But on another occasion the Minister of Labour expressed a view in public about this man. He did not seem to agree with the Minister without Portfolio, who thought that Hess's oming here showed signs of chipping in the Nazi edifice. On the contrary, the Minister of Labour said:
I do not believe that this gentleman came here without Hitler's knowledge.
That is a very different story. Those, of course, are the speeches of the great, of members of the Government. The principle of collective Cabinet responsibility does not seem to have been followed in any exaggerated degree in the preparation of those statements, if they were prepared. But, of course, a host of other people have had things to say about this matter. It was said on one occasion, through the Ministry of Information, that the Duke of Hamilton had received a letter from Hess a month before his arrival here, and I think the statement implied, or asserted, that he had replied to it. That statement was subsequently withdrawn, and it was said that he had not had a letter, and had not replied. Another statement that I read recently in the Press—and presumably the Minister of Information knew of it—was that on a previous occasion, when Hess was on a diplomatic mission on behalf of the German Government in Madrid, he had telephoned to someone whom he knew in Gibraltar to inquire what would happen to him if he were to fly from Madrid to Gibraltar. Apparently, according to this report, he was told that, if he did try, he would be shot down, and for that or for some other reason he


evidently decided not to make the venture, and he did not arrive in Gibraltar.
I have had a number of communications, some anonymous and some not, since this Question appeared upon the Order Paper, and one of the anonymous correspondents suggests an entirely different purpose. He gives the name of a lady, who was for a long time in Germany and who arrived in this country from Germany after the war by arrangement between the Governments, and suggests that there were domestic entanglements arising out of that which induced Mr. Hess to leave his wife and family at the mercy of Hitler in Berlin and put himself at the mercy of the Prime Minister and his Government in this country. Over and above all that, since the Question was answered in the House or was not answered, I see that a man, not a Member of this House but a well-known public figure—I think he is the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who was recently honoured by his Majesty as Sir Patrick Dollan—has made a speech. I am not sure whether he is not the chairman, or secretary, or something of the Ministry of Information Regional Committee. He has made a statement, which the newspapers entitled "Hess—the Truth," and the truth according to Sir Patrick is that Hess arrived in this country expecting to make contact with certain individuals or groups whom he does not venture to name and to be able to go back again in two days' time.
Whatever the truth of this matter, can anyone believe that a sensational event, handled in this manner, is really of greater disservice to the enemy than it is to ourselves? Is this incident being used to cause doubt and mystification and uneasy, doubtful surmise in the minds of the German population or in the minds of our own population? There are contradictory statements made by authoritative persons, and very shortly after the happening of the event there is, as far as one can see, a complete and apparently directed silence in the Press and elsewhere about this matter altogether.
Let me make this clear. I have no illusions about this man. There were people who talked about his high moral character and how different he was from all the others. I make nothing of all that. I do not suppose that, if there were opportunities for negotiation with representatives

of the German Government acting and speaking, and entitled to act and speak, for the German people to consider the state in which Europe now is and how that state might be improved, His Majesty's Government would wish to choose. or would be supported in choosing, as such representative any member of the present German regime, Hess is the architect, as much as anyone. of this gang which has enslaved, first Germany, and then the whole of Europe. I do not share the views of those who say that all Germans are Nazis. I do not share the belief of the late Prime Minister, though he did not always believe it, that the German people were responsible for the present German Government. I do not believe that, in a totalitarian regime such as this, with a rigid censorship of information, opinion, discussion and criticism, with no elections, no meetings, no right almost to think, and certainly no right to know and no right to express, the people can remain responsible for their Government in the same way as a democracy is responsible for its Government. Moreover, if I did think so, or if I thought it possible that a people subject to all that could still remain responsible for its Government in the way that I am responsible for mine and the people of this country are responsible for theirs, then I would be at a loss to understand what advantage is claimed for the democratic system over the totalitarian one. I do say that, when a man who is as much responsible as any other man, including the titular leader, for the existence of this regime in Germany, and for the fate into which it has landed Europe, arrives in this country, then the people of this country are entitled to know, as far as the Government can tell them, what were the reasons and motives of that extremely unexpected happening.
After all, this is not the Government's war. They are not bearing the brunt of it, or at any rate not alone. The great burden, the tragedy, the misery, the suffering, and the cost are borne by the vast multitude of our countrymen. Do not despise them; do not mistrust them. Do not think that you are entitled to mother them and coddle them and wrap them round with cotton wool. Decide what they shall know and what they shall not know, or you will run a very serious risk of committing the very errors which


the German Government have committed and which have landed us where we are. You have a people who are brave, determined and diligent in what they undertake themselves to see through to success. Do not fear that anything which we might have to tell them about Hess will, affect their judgment of the commitments that are involved in the struggle that is now taking place. You have nothing of which to be afraid. Nothing in the wide world of that kind need prevent you from saying what it is. Is it suggested that you might be telling the German people too much? I can see dangers in saying too much; I can see advantages in keeping them guessing as to this, that or the other detail, but I am bound to say if you say nothing about it at all, that then the German Government's statement to their people stands unchallenged by you. The German people are entitled to believe that this man suffered from some progressive nervous disease which had made him mentally unstable and that no attention whatever need be paid to his act.
The Government say, "That is not so at all. He is perfectly all right; he is in high spirits; he is being fed on chicken, and his health is perfectly all right." In my Question I included some reference to the Government's own plan. The two things, although at first sight they may not appear to belong together, are not really so divided. There are many people in this country who believe, rightly or wrongly—the Government will not yet let us know—that Hess arrived here with a definite plan for peace. I would like to ask the Government a direct question: Is that the case or not? Can there be any reason for not telling us? If he did not arrive with any such proposal, obviously there can be no harm in the Government's authoritatively saying so and setting these doubts at rest here and now and for all time. If, on the other hand, he did bring with him, on his own behalf, on behalf of any group or on behalf of the German Government, any proposal of that kind, why should the Government be afraid to say that this was so and let us know what the proposal was? Are they afraid that in some way the morale of the people of this country would be affected by knowing that. That would be a very misguided view. Morale would surely tend to be heightened and

not diminished by knowledge that this man, who shares in so high a degree responsibility for German government, felt that the state of the war was such that they ought to make proposals to bring it to an end.
But there are other considerations more important. I have contended—I regret to say with only a handful of support so far—for many months that the people who are most entitled to know what ultimade objects we have in view in this struggle are the people who are fighting the struggle and bearing the brunt of the conflict. If proposals are made to the Government, they are made to the Government only in order to be made known to the people, and nobody is better entitled to know the facts than the people of the country. The Prime Minister said that he would not at that time make a statement to the House, that he did not know when he would make a statement and that he did not know whether he ever would make a statement. But he added that he had told the Government of the United States. What has he told the Government of the United States? What is there that the Government of the United States are entitled to know about this matter that the people of this country are not entitled to know? I am not behind others in gratitude to the United States for the very necessary help they are rendering to us, and are proposing to continue to render, until this struggle is successfully ended. I am not saying for a single moment that there may not be very good grounds indeed for letting the United States Government know the truth about this matter. What I am complaining of is that the people of this country, whose right to know is not less than Mr. Roosevelt's, are not told too.
Europe is in a tragic condition. I think we may say that with common consent. No man can foresee how long this dreadful war will go on; no one can estimate what its ultimate cost, not merely to this country, but to the whole world, may be. No man may know whether at the end of it all we shall create a desert which we shall call peace and give it the permanence of the grave. A great responsibility rests upon all actors, great and humble, in this matter. The tragedies of Europe did not begin on 3rd September, 1939. They are of older date than that. The vast unemployment, the great poverty,


the constant competition between man and man, class and class, race and race and nation and nation to secure an ever larger share of ever dwindling wealth in a world capable of providing a standard of living higher for everybody than the world has ever known—all that existed before September, 1939, and they are the root causes of this war, as of other wars.
Some day, by someone, these problems will have to be tackled and solved. I am under no illusion about Hitler's federated States of Europe. An enslaved Germany leading an enslaved Europe is not a united Europe. Some day there will have to be a real federation of Europe, a real United States of Europe. I would like to see our country leading the struggle for that and saying so clearly and boldly, and I would like to see its imagination of the future approaching in some degree the courage with which some people are fighting for that future. I resent more deeply than I can say that the only statements that have been vouchsafed to our own people, so far as there have been any statements, about how the Government view those problems and their ultimate solution, have been dragged out of them reluctantly in speeches by His Majesty's Ambassador to some New York journalists and speeches by the Foreign Secretary to a handful of business men in the City of London. It is not good enough. I beg the Government to remember what people it is that they have the responsibility of leading in these times and to trust them as much as—nay, trust them better than—they would trust one another.

Mr. Stokes: I wish to support the claim made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that the Government should make some definite pronouncement on this most puzzling matter. My hon. Friend spoke of this descent from the skies as a sensation, and I think it is not an exaggeration to say that to ordinary persons, like me, it appears that this is the most sensational thing that has happened for many hundreds of years. I should like to refer to some of the remarks that were made in the daily Press at or about the time, because the whole position has been wrought round with an extraordinary amount of suppression, inexact statement, and, in some cases, I am almost tempted to say, untruth. At or

about the time of Herr Hess's arrival, the diplomatic correspondent of the "Daily Mail" made this statement:
Greatly would I like to tell the true story of the flight to this country of Rudolf Hess, Germany's No. 3 Nazi, who, I assume, is still with us.
There is then something which is irrelevant, and he went on to ask:
What caused Hess to make such a carefully calculated flight to this country?"—
Evidently, in the mind of the diplomatic correspondent of the "Daily Mail," it was no mistake—
What made him make his perilous parachute descent in Scotland? What, if anything, did he bring with him, and with what purpose did he land? Above all, I would like to report for certain that he is still here. But I am not in a position to do so.
He then said:
A prominent and very knowledgeable spokesman for the Government told me that the Hess story was the biggest story of the war.
It would appear from these remarks, and from similar articles in the Press of all denominations and types, that it was generally recognised—as I think we all agree—that this was a very sensational happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne made some semi-comic references to the possibility of one of our own Ministers arriving over Berlin and tumbling out by parachute. It does not really come within the scope of my imagination to think of the Lord President of the Council turning himself upside down over Berlin.

Mr. Cocks: The Lord Chancellor would be better.

Mr. Stokes: Of course, one of the disadvantages from which we suffer, to a certain extent, is that the Cabinet consists of old men—we cannot blame Members of the Government for getting on in years. But they have not the natural youth and vigour of the leaders of Germany, who are able to undertake missions of this kind amongst other activities with apparent ease and facility, and without very much fear. Be that as it may, let us not forget what the Prime Minister said on this subject. It was all very well for the Prime Minister, in replying to a Question which I put to him on 10th June, to say that he had no statement to make, but on 16th May the "Times" Lobby correspondent had reported:


The Prime Minister, answering questions in the House of Commons to-day, promised to take the first opportunity to give the House authentic news about Hess.
Since then, we have had nothing but negative authentic news, and some of it not very authentically negative. My hon. Friend referred to that highly active genius, the Lord Provost of Glasgow. Some newspapers have even reported that he has had a private interview with Hess. I cannot believe that is so, but evidently the Lord Provost sticks by his guns, for, according to the "Manchester Guardian" of yesterday, Sir Patrick Dollan
has 'rejected ' Dr. Henderson's rebuke and stands to his statement
with regard to the purpose of the arrival of Herr Hess. It seems to me to be wrong that a person occupying the position which Sir Patrick does should be at liberty to trot round Scotland telling all the Scots what, apparently, we are not permitted to hear authentically from the Government in the House. I also take the Government to task on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, namely, the sending of information to the American Government. I agree that the Americans are, to all intents and purposes, fighting the war with us, but we are doing the bleeding and dying, and our people have as much right—and more right—to know what this is all about. as the great American Republic and its leaders across the water.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Assuming for the moment that the German Government do not know what Herr Hess has said in this country, does the hon. Member think it very desirable that we should tell them? If we told the American Government and the American Government had gone on to tell the American people, then I should agree with what the hon. Member has said, but if we-told the American Government as a friendly Government and it is to go no further, surely that is a very different thing from publishing the information and telling the German Government, who may be in ignorance of what Hess has said.

Mr. Stokes: I quite understand the point of view of my hon. Friend, or half friend, opposite, but I do not suggest' for a

moment that any statement should be made by our Government which would be of great assistance to the enemy. However, the suspicion which is getting into the minds of our people is that we have got to defer to the American Government on these subjects, and cannot decide these major matters for ourselves. No public pronouncement has yet been made in America, but, knowing America as I do, I do not think it will be very long before there is one, and I should not be in the least surprised to hear that there is a semi-authentic statement made there long before the House of Commons has received any information from the Goverment, having regard to the experience we have had of this Government during the last few months on such matters. But the charge which I want to lay at the door of the Government is that of terminological inexactitude, or whatever is the Prime Minister's term for these half-statements which are worse than direct untruths. In his statement on this subject on 22nd May, the Secretary of State for Air said:
The Duke of Hamilton did not recognise the prisoner and had never met the Deputy-Führer.
I do not know whether we are really expected to believe that. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has searched through the personal dossiers relevant to this matter, and whether he has satisfied himself that Hess was not known to the Duke of Hamilton. That seems to be the only satisfactory way of arriving at a solution. I have not access to the papers, but my right hon. Friend has. From all I have heard and been told about people who have flown and belonged to various flying clubs on the Continent, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Duke of Hamilton knew Hess well to speak to and certainly by sight. Why, then, put over a silly sort of untruth of this kind? I am making no imputation whatsoever against the Duke of Hamilton. Why should he not know Hess? He has travelled in Germany as a lot of us have done, and he had a right to get in touch with the leaders of that country and try to understand their point of view. My complaint is against the stupidity of the Government in putting out what I believe to be an inaccurate statement of this kind. Indeed, there may be further support for what I say.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether this account of what happened on the arrival of Hess is correct or not. I would ask the House to bear in mind that we have to accept the Government's statement that Hess was unknown to and unrecognisable by the Duke of Hamilton. It appears, so far as I have been able to understand, that on the arrival of this stranger he asked to see the Duke of Hamilton. It appears that the Duke was engaged as a serving officer in an aerodrome not very far away and that he went with the security officer of that aerodrome to see Hess, and, when he saw him we are asked to believe that he did not know it was Hess. Is it not true that the Duke of Hamilton was left alone with Hess for 1½ hours, with the security officer outside? What is the advisability of that, unless there was some acquaintanceship or understanding which might produce information of great value to this country? Surely it seems perfectly clear that he had knowledge of the man before he met him here? The Secretary of State for Air goes on to say in his statement:
Contrary to reports which have appeared in some newspapers, the Duke has never been in correspondence with the Deputy Fuhrer." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1941, col 1591. Vol 371.]
How does that tie up with the gymnastics of the Minister of Information? Apparently he seems to have told Press correspondents that some time before a letter had been received by the Duke of Hamilton from Hess. It is not said what happened to the letter, but no doubt it was handed over to the appropriate authorities in the ordinary way. But that statement is completely contradictory of what the Secretary of State for Air said in this House on 22nd May. There is another important point on this matter which needs clearing up. My hon. Friend who opened the Debate made some reference to the various statements made by leaders of the Government which seemed to be contradictory to one another, and various statements made in this House. It appears that the Minister of Information told the Press, assembled at the Ministry of Information, that the story to put about was to say that Hess flew here through fear. That is all right; it might have been good propaganda from his point of view—I do not know. But how can you reconcile that statement with what was said by the Minister of Labour

the next day? After all, he is a member of the War Cabinet. He stated:
My own views on this adventure I will not express at this gathering, further than to say that I do not believe Hitler did not know Hess was coming to England.
The two things do not tie up. It may be that the members of the Government live in watertight compartments, and that in consequence one does not know what the others are doing, in which case the sooner we clear the lot out the better for all of us. The two statements cannot be reconciled; they do not seem to bear examination by any reasonable-minded man. Finally, we have now the cheerful rumour that Hess is living at Chequers. Why has he gone to Chequers? I do not know whether it is true or not, but it is common talk. Why cannot we be told some element of truth instead of having these ridiculous contradictory statements?

Major Vyvyan Adams: What is the authority for saying that that is the present residence of Hess?

Mr. Stokes: I am not going to give my authority. I know very well what my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to say. I know what happens to people who give information to Members of this House, when you reveal names. I am not proposing to do it in this connection because such people get victimised against the wish of the House. You get up against a stone-wall of officialdom, determined to down the man who has attempted to tell the truth and stand by our privileges and rights. I think it is generally recognised now that Hess, for better or worse, brought some kind of peace proposal.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke): It may be for worse.

Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend is no doubt a much better soothsayer and visionary than myself, but I prefer to take the facts as I find them. I do not wish the Government to make any statement which is of use to the enemy, but I do say, if there was a statement or proposal of any kind, then the people of this country, who are bearing the heat of the battle, have a right to be told the truth and nothing but the truth, and that the methods in which the Government have so far indulged have brought nothing but discontent and suspicion.

Major Vyvyan Adams: Whatever may have been the true motive of the flight of Hess to this country, this incident is, I think, pregnant with lessons for all of us. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) eloquently dabbled in conjecture. With the greatest possible respect, I ask him not to allow himself to be deceived. If there were not an overwhelming majority of Germans enthusiastically in favour of the Nazi regime, it would not now be surviving with such cruel efficiency. Without the German people, where would Herr Hitler, Hess or any of them be?
Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this matter, I am afraid he will elicit very little when the Government reply. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is cleverer than anyone I have ever met in disclosing no information whatsoever. Indeed, the presence of my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench is a signal that the Government have nothing at all to say to-day. On the other hand, I hope the hon. Member will evoke nothing in reply to his observations about the cause of the war. It seems to me to be quite irrelevant to this Hess incident. All that need be said about that now is that there would have been no war without a powerful and aggressive Germany, and that it is our first duty to remove from Germany the power to be guilty of that aggression
There are many theories about Hess—indeed there are just as many theories as there are heads to hold them. During Question time some weeks ago I ventured to suggest that it is to be regretted that the Minister of Information, or the Prime Minister, if he assumes responsibility for this matter, allowed the Germans to be first in their allegation that Hess was mad. As a result of that statement by the German propaganda machine, the theory is still widely held among a bewildered but still excited public in this country that Hess is mad, whereas Hess is no more mad than Crippen, Judas Iscariot or Satan. Better than silence would have been our ruthless use of this gift from hell. We should, I say, have used it ruthlessly, but as a matter of fact the Minister of Information has made no more use of it than an oyster. There are two theories which have enjoyed the greatest popularity. One is the more plausible, namely, that Hess came here in fear of

something. I was half-inclined to that view at first, but as time has passed, that comfortable doctrine has lost its first bloom. And yet I agree emphatically with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that the British public is entitled to know and can be trusted with the knowledge. [An HON. MEMBER: "In time of war?"] Certainly. The other theory, the one to which I have been most inclined, seems now the more probable. It is that the coming of Hess and his descent in Scotland is some kind of plant undertaken either with or without the full collusion of Hitler. There is this to be said in favour of that theory that every apparent inconsistency fits it and every improbability makes the whole thing much more probable.
But here is something which, I, in particular, and, I believe, the House in general, cannot understand. Why should the Ministry of Information stumble or indeed seem to prevaricate, as it did at one point, while at the same time the Lord Provost of Glasgow enjoys the licence of making a statement with every semblance of authority and aid of publicity? Who is he, anyway, compared with His Majesty's Government? Why this official silence on the matter? It almost looks as though the Government are unwilling to trust the people with the true explanation. I assure my right hon. Friend however negative and charmingly elusive he may be when he comes to reply, that he and the Government need have no fear about that. I am perfectly well assured that the ordinary people of the country are as resolute for victory as our great and incomparable Prime Minister. Perhaps they are more resolute than the two hon. Members who opened the Debate.

Mr. Silverman: Why more?

Major Adams: If the hon. Member objects to the phrase "more resolute," and thinks the comparison invidious to the people I will withdraw it and say "just as resolute." If I may express the comparison in formal terms 1 believe the people of the country are far more favourable to the Vansittart point of view than to the Londonderry point of view.

Mr. Stokes: No.

Major Adams: The hon. Member is anxious to identify himself with the opinions of Lord Londonderry.

Mr. Stokes: I did not say anything of the sort. I would ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that if you make a statement on the public plat-form to-day that. Sir Robert Vansittart has done more damage to our cause than any other individual man, that is the statement that gets the most applause?

Major Adams: The hon. Member should not be so zealous to interrupt. His monosyllabic interruption seemed to fix on Lord Londonderry. He has now involved himself in one of the most ridiculous and absurd statements I have ever heard and it is entirely contrary to the truth. This country is resolute for victory. They know perfectly well that if we allow a strong unitary Germany to emerge in the centre of Europe after the war, we are certain within a measurable time to have to face another war. The people of this country are not so stupid as to wish to annihilate the German people but they wish to obliterate the present German State for the sake of the security of their descendants. They agree that the Government should follow the only possible course to achieve that end—batter, defeat, disarm, occupy, divide. These are five imperatives which the Government will ignore to the ruin of our children.
I believe that Hess came to this country under the fond delusion that he could debauch our aristocracy by saying to them, "Join us, or we join Russia." It seems that he came having in his pocket proposals which might attract the mentality which now wants peace at any cost. There is such a mentality and it is mainly to be found here and there in corners among the well-born and well-to-do, those who have more money than sense, those who whisper the dangerous fallacy, "Better defeat with our possessions, than victory with Bolshevism," which is exactly what Hitler wants them to say. Such an outlook is to be found, only half-ashamed, in the corners of another place. Appeasement is not dead among those whom I may call, for the purpose of rough convenience, the "Cliveden Set," an expression as historically convenient and geographically inaccurate as the "Holy Roman Empire."
I have no doubt indeed that the "Times" newspaper would quickly

make surrender or compromise appear respectable. Indeed, leading articles constructing a staircase down to compromise are probably already written and pigeon-holed in Printing-House Square. If anyone doubts that, although superficially there may be something slightly laughable about it, will he recall the "Times" reception of the Hess episode and the subsequent lies and evasions practised by that newspaper? After beginning by calling Hess—in heavy type—an idealist, it proceeded to deny that it had done so and, when it could no longer deny it, it stated that no one in his senses could conceivably fail to know what a thoroughly bad person an idealist is. No little provincial newspaper could ever have sunk to such meanness. This is the newspaper, the most influential of our national organs, which first advocated the surrender to Hitler of the Czechoslovak fortresses and opened its columns to a long correspondence about giving colonies to Germany. If the Hess incident has done nothing else, I hope it has succeeded in putting us on our guard.
With all seriousness I say to my right hon. Friend and to the Home Office, that the Government would do well to re-examine the records of all those who have treated Germany in the past as some kind of bulwark against Bolshevism and those who were frantic in their endeavours to extend the Nazi dominion to Colonial territories in Africa. Most dangerous of all are those who used to behave in this queer way and now make ultra-patriotic speeches and ask ultra-patriotic questions about military bands. Their patriotism can be switched off just as conveniently as it can be switched on. There are others typified by the people who utter two most dangerous clichés—clichés that are active even in the middle of this war which we are prosecuting for our survival. They are "You cannot keep Germany down" and "The German is not a bad fellow." It is, most unfortunately, the fact that the majority of Germans at present are worse than bad fellows. They are filthy fellows, and Hess is one of the filthiest. This evil has got to be smashed and smashed for good, whatever it costs and however long the task may be. Otherwise, if we expose ourselves to any deception by a creature like Hess or by any of those allied with him, we shall betray posterity.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member said that the people who lead us wrongly are those who say that we cannot hold Germany down. Does he remember the words of the Prime Minister that Germany cannot be held in permanent subjection?

Major Adams: To reply in the manner of the Prime Minister, that was no doubt a remark made by that annoying person Mr. Winston Churchill. I do not think it necessary for me to make another speech on this matter. I hoped that I made it clear in my opening remarks what I thought would be the great danger of the period after the war if we should allow a strong united Germany to emerge again in the centre of Europe. If we do so we shall certainly get another war. It seems mere common sense that we should keep Germany disarmed and, if possible, divided after this war.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I do not want to enter into a general discussion on the question of war aims or anything of that kind, but to deal with the limited question whether the Government are right or wrong in not making an authoritative statement which would necessarily become immediately known to the German Government on what Hess has done and said in this country. There are various theories about Hess's purpose in coming to this country, but there are two main possibilities. The first is that he came without the knowledge and consent of the German Government, and the second is that he came with it. On the first assumption, that he came without their knowledge and consent, what better policy can there be than to leave the German Government guessing what he has said and doneéa policy which would at once be defeated if the Government made a statement on the subject? On the second supposition, that he came with their knowledge and consent, I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Leeds (Major V. Adams) has said, that his purpose would almost certainly be to deceive us. In that case, any statement which indicated what we thought of his statement might give the German Government some indication of whether or not Hess had succeeded in his task of deceiving those who had interviewed him. Whatever assumption is made about the circumstances in which Hess left Germany, the advantages of

leaving Germany guessing seem to me quite overwhelming.

Mr. Granville: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there has been no broadcast from this country in the German language to Germany on the Hess affair?

Mr. Strauss: I am certainly not saying that. If this were a Debate on the Ministry of Information, it is possible that I should have a good deal to say on that subject. Whatever the wisdom or un-wisdom of some of the remarks made by the B.B.C. on the subject, the question to-day is, "Shall the Government make an authoritative statement about what Hess has said and done?" That appears to have been the demand of the hon. Member who opened this discussion, most of whose speech I regret I was unable to hear because I was, unavoidably, elsewhere. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Leeds made what seemed to me the naive and mistaken remark that this country put itself at a disadvantage because Germany made the first statement on the subject. I can think of few facts in recent months from which this country derived so obvious an advantage. The German Government, quite ignorant of where Hess had landed and thinking that he might be dead, committed themselves to the idiotic statement that he was mad, a statement that was immediately disproved by the fact that he had navigated a complicated machine with considerable skill almost precisely to the destination where he wished to arrive. In other words, the German Government, because we made no statement on the subject, committed themselves to what the whole world recognised as an obvious and palpable lie.
The result of that was that, without the British Government making any statement on the subject at all, the German Government lost prestige in every country in the world. That was not an unimportant consequence. Had we made the first announcement of Hess's arrival, the German Government would never have committed themselves to so futile and idiotic a statement. They were led into a series of fantastic contradictions, and I can think of few recent matters which have cast so much discredit upon German propaganda. I do not differ much from the critics in the House with regard to


some of the things that were said by the B.B.C. It was certainly very unfortunate that in their first announcement they said that Hess had had correspondence with a person in this country. That was apparently completely untrue.

Mr. Stokes: The Minister of Information said there had been correspondence.

Major Adams: It was denied by the Air Minister.

Mr. Strauss: I heard both the statement of the Minister for Air, and the subsequent statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information in answer to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Leeds, which stated that the original statement by the B.B.C, based on information given by the Ministry of Information, was wrong. Whatever blunders the B.B.C. or the Minister of Information may have made, the question that we are discussing to-day is whether the Government should now make a further statement on what Hess has said in this country. The hon. Member who opened the discussion said that they should do so because they had told the American Government. I have already pointed out in an intervention that that is no valid argument. If our Government tell a friendly Government in whom they have complete confidence, that does not publish it to the world, and, above all, it does not publish it to the German Government. The demand of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), supported by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), is that we should tell the British people, and thereby tell the German Government, what Hess has said.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member told the House correctly earlier in his speech that he had not heard what I demanded. Let me assure him that I did not demand at any time, and do not demand now, that the Government should state what Hess has said. That was not the purpose of my argument. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that they ought not to say anything which would give the enemy useful information which they could not get in any other way. That does not go so far as to say that the Government are entitled to make no statement whatever to the people of this country about this important matter.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) suggesting that the German Government themselves do not know what Herr Hess proposed?

Mr. H. Strauss: I say definitely that there are two possible theories, either that they do know or that they do not know. If they do not know it would be the greatest mistake to tell them. If they do know, and the purpose of Herr Hess's visit, was to deceive, then it would be the greatest possible mistake for us to say anything which might indicate, directly or indirectly, whether we had been taken in.

Mr. Cocks: Herr Hess could tell us whether the German Government know or do not know the purpose of his visit.

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend, who is generally not quite so simple in foreign affairs, would apparently be content to take at its face value any statement made by Herr Hess.

Mr. Cocks: indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss: That is a perfectly fair comment on the intervention my hon. Friend has just made. I say that, whatever Herr Hess says, it will remain a fact that there are the two possibilities, that he came with the knowledge of the German Government or that he came without their knowledge. If he came without their knowledge it would be a mistake of the first magnitude to enlighten them on what he has done or said here.' If he came with their knowledge, it would be the greatest mistake to make it clear, either directly or indirectly, whether his desire to deceive us had succeeded. For those reasons I believe the Government have been entirely right not to make a statement, and I believe that the House, by an overwhelming majority in every quarter, is willing to leave the matter to the discretion of the Prime Minister.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I am rather sorry that the Minister of Information is not here. We like to see my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but, after all, the Foreign Office is now a Department of diminishing importance. The whole of Europe has gone out of its ken altogether. The Dominions and the Colonies are under the charge of other Departments. The only part of the world that the Foreign Office now has to deal with is


the United States of America—no doubt there are few other foreign countries which are not under German tutelage, but not many. I rather resent the fact that on a matter which concerns publicity, Government propaganda and Government policy, and for which the Minister of Information is responsible to this House, not from a foreign policy aspect but from a home policy aspect in its implications and its repercussions on public opinion, the Minister of Information has not paid the House the courtesy of being present. I raised this matter in an interjection when the Prime Minister made his original statement to the House on the arrival of Herr Hess. I asked my right hon. Friend at that time whether the Minister of Information would deal with this matter with skill and imagination, and he was good enough to say that the imagination rather defied the facts. I am sure the House will agree that it has not been dealt with either with skill or imagination by the Minister responsible for dealing with it.

Mr. Stokes: He is not allowed to do anything.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: My own personal view, for what it is worth, is that I rather agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Leeds (Major V. Adams) as to the purpose for which Herr Hess came to this country. I think he came with a specific proposal and that he was a direct emissary. I think he came with certain peace proposals. I think those peace proposals were specious and a trick. I think that if we had taken them it would have given us a few months interlude, led to a dangerous armistice, and enabled the Germans to pounce upon us in a very short time afterwards. That is information which has come to me, and I must say from a source which I cannot neglect.

Mr. Silverman: A Government source? An Hon. Member: From imagination?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: We want imagination where it is needed, and that is in the Ministry of Information. My information has come from a place where I can reconcile it with facts.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask the hon. Member what he wants the Ministry of Information to imagine?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am not complaining of the attitude of the Ministry of Information as far as this country is concerned. I think this country has more or less forgotten the Hess incident. We have a terrible war to prosecute, and we want to get on with the work, but as far as Germany is concerned we showed neither skill nor imagination nor any intelligence, so far as I can see. Friends of mine who have followed some of the German broadcasts have been very much disappointed with them. We had a magnificent opportunity, such as comes only once in centuries, and any country engaged in a war of this character should have made use of it to the utmost of its power. We ought to have a record made by Hess for the wireless.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the hon. Member think it would assist our cause in Germany for Herr Hess to make a statement to the effect that he had come over to this country with a peace offer?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: A point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) in regard to broad casting to Germany. You cannot have it both ways. He states that we cannot tell the German Government anything about Hess —

Mr. H. Strauss: I did not say that.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: —or anything about Hess's sayings. We broadcast to Germany itself certain information—

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is not meeting the point. I understand that he has information upon which he relies as to the reason of Hess's visit to this country. He suggests that we ought to tell the German people what Hess says his purpose was, and his purpose, I understand, was to convey a peace offer which Hitler was willing to accept.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I think the hon. Member misunderstands. The point I was trying to get over to the House was that we have not made use of the arrival of Hess in this country in order to undermine the Nazi regime in Germany. The way to do that is not by repeating what Hess is saying about any peace basis; but there are all sorts of ways which would occur to the House, surely, and are not beyond the comprehension of


hon. Members, of going on to the microphone and addressing the German people. I have no doubt it is rather late in the day for the Government to adopt this particular suggestion, so I feel I am pretty safe in mentioning it to the House. Surely it is not beyond the possibility of a Government engaged in a war in which propaganda is a matter of life or death, and may mean the saving of millions of lives in the course of the war, to devise any methods which may undermine the Nazi regime. I say that it can be done.

Mr. H. Strauss: Surely the tremendous fact to bring home to the German people was that their Deputy-Fuehrer had landed in this country, and that though the German Government now described him as mad, their Fuehrer, in recent speeches, had given him the highest praise. Those extracts of speeches of the Fuehrer were broadcast by the B.B.C. — I think I am right—to Germany. Surely that was effective propaganda.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I specifically stated that the very reason that I am making these statements was that I know the Government now cannot adopt my suggestion. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh at that, but the suggestion could have been adopted. It might have been adopted in the earlier stages. Is there anything wrong in the suggestion? Is it beyond the means of a Government, engaged in a war of this character, to take that point of view and to broadcast to the German people? I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing one single remark I have made here about the arrival of Hess in this country. I felt very strongly about it. I repeated, and I continue to repeat, that the Ministry of Information, whether from lack of power, lack of will, or lack of ability, have not used this magnificent opportunity, which only comes, as I said, once in many centuries. I have not said anything in this House which would retard our war effort. Everything I have said was with the intention of assisting our war effort.

Mr. Granville: Is it not a fact that broadcasts are being made to Germany, and have been so made on many occasions, either in reply or otherwise, to the German people, concerning the Hess affair? How was it done, and on what basis were these broadcasts made? Were

they just conjured out of the air, or were they based upon what Hess had said to various people whom Hess had seen in this country? What the hon. Gentleman is asking is that those broadcasts should be given world publicity and publicity in this country as well, instead of being confined to Germany.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Possibly that is what I was trying to get at. My hon. Friend has been able to put it more clearly. Before sitting down, I intended to ask one or two questions. I do not know who is now responsible for the safeguarding and the protection of this prisoner Hess and whether he comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Office or the Army. I want to ask the Government: Is he adequately protected against escape and recapture? I would put it in the old terms and ask whether every avenue is being explored in order to see what devices the Nazis might conjure up. They will conjure up many devices in order to secure this prisoner. I hope that we shall not be taken unawares as we were at Crete. It would be possible for the Germans to land troop-carriers and parachutists in the neighbourhood where Hess is. I ask the Government very strongly, and I ask with apprehension, because I do not quite fully trust the Government —. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Their intentions are all right, but we are so easy-going as a people and so trustful. We ought to get some reply on this matter, and I ask the Secretary of State for War whether every measure that can be thought of will be taken to see that this prisoner is safeguarded against either escape or recapture.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): It is important for the representative of the Government to make a simple statement now to clear up some of the confusion which has undoubtedly been created by the speech of the hon. Gentleman and by one or two other remarks made in the Debate. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), who introduced this subject, gave an exact replica of the chronology of the questions which have been put on this subject, and he faithfully reproduced both his own Question and the Prime Minister's answer. The Prime Minister said on 10th June that he was unable to make a statement about this prisoner at the present time He told


the House that, when he was in a position to make a statement, he would do so. The Prime Minister and the Government have, on this occasion, through the spokesman of the Government, nothing to add to the statements already made.
There is no mystery or confusion about Hess. Hess is a prisoner of war and is being treated as such.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there must be some confusion in the country. The Government said that they cannot add to their statement, but other individuals have been making statements in the country that have created confusion.

Mr. Butler: I will say a word about that. I was saying just now that Hess has been treated, since his arrival, as a prisoner of war. There is laid down a definite scale of treatment to be applied to prisoners of war, according to international practice. This includes scales of diet and the manner of detention. These details, according as they are laid down in the Convention, are being applied in the case of Hess. Therefore there is no mystery about his treatment.

Major Adams: I am extremely sorry to intervene, but this is something I have not understood. Why is Hess treated as a prisoner of war? I put this question quite seriously. Is he not more accurately described as an alien here without passport? Should he not be treated as a civil prisoner?

Mr. Butler: Whatever his description may be in the eyes of the hon. Member or of anybody else, he is being treated as a prisoner of war, and will continue to be so treated.

Major Adams: I am asking why.

Mr. Butler: Because that is, by the decision of the Government, the best way to treat him.

Mr. Silverman: Is he being treated as a military or civilian prisoner of war, and in what class of the code is he regarded as coming, private or officer?

Mr. Butler: I cannot elaborate the statement I have made. He is being treated as an officer and kept in detention as a

prisoner of war. I think it is important to tell the House that he is being treated as a prisoner of war, because there has been a series of statements made implying that he is receiving very special, luxurious treatment, and those statements have undoubtedly been resented by the British people, to whose sufferings reference has been made in the course of this Debate. I am glad to take this opportunity of making that clear statement in order to show that he is being treated perfectly fairly and rigidly as a prisoner of war, with all the attendant circumstances.

Mr. Bevan: But has the right hon. Gentleman really made it clear? He has said that the Government propose to treat this man as a prisoner of war. and when asked why, he said that it is because the Government have so decided, but that is not quite clear. Is it not a fact that this man landed in this country in an aeroplane in a uniform? He did not come in civilian clothes, but in uniform, and had therefore surrendered himself to the enemy. That is what puts him in the class of a prisoner of war.

Mr. Butler: The case of Hess is a particular one, and the hon. Gentleman has given his own interpretation. I do not think it is an unreasonable one, but I cannot go further than to say that I am not empowered to give any further particulars of the treatment of Hess, but simply to say that he is being treated as a prisoner of war according to the recognised Convention. That leads me to the point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) when he said that Hess was at Chequers. That, of course, is nonsense, and I take the opportunity of saying so, because I think it important, in the short reply I am giving, to answer some of the statements that have been made. The other conjectures as to the reason for Hess coming here can, I think, be left to the imagination of individual Members. Whether my right hon. Friend the 'Minister of Information has imagination or not, it is perfectly clear that hon. Members in this House have given full rein to their imagination to-day. I am not able, and I understand that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne does not desire me, to make a statement which is not according to the public interest. It is not the custom to make statements about prisoners of war or their views, and there-


fore, while fully realising the intense curiosity of hon. Members of this House and of the country to find out more about this gentleman, I am unable to satisfy that curiosity for reasons of public interest.
The hon. Member who interrupted me, quite reasonably, raised the case of the Lord Provost of Glasgow. The speech of the Lord Provost has come to the attention of the Government. I wish to say nothing which detracts from the excellent work being done by the Lord Provost in this war, his courage, his dignity, or his contribution to the war effort. both in his own city and the country at large, but I will say quite simply that from the Government's point of view he was not in any way authorised to make such a statement. It was made entirely upon his own authority and, I can only suppose, from his own surmise.

Mr. Sloan: Was it true?

Mr. Butler: It was made on his own authority. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) raised various questions about whether the Duke of Hamilton had or had not seen Hess.

Mr. Stokes: Knew Hess, I said.

Mr. Butler: Whether the Duke of Hamilton knew Hess or whether correspondence had taken place before between Hess and the Duke. On that, I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Air. That was an official expression of the view of the Government and was given to the House on the 22nd May.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether that statement is true or untrue? I believe it to be untrue.

Mr. Butler: The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is true. There was a substantial point made as to why His Majesty's Government informed the American Government, and why, if the American Government can be informed the British public cannot be informed as well. I think that has already been answered by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). There have been endless diplomatic exchanges between this Government and other Governments throughout the course

of the war, and I personally have frequently been pressed to divulge them to the House. It has been a source of sorrow to me that I have not been in a position to do so, and on this occasion I stand in the same position as I have stood on so many previous occasions. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was quite serious when he said that we must not in any way reduce the morale of the people by not telling them everything we know. It is a reasonable request that the British public should share as far as possible the inner thoughts and knowledge of the Government, and there has been no desire either in those instances or any other for the Government to conceal from the British public anything which would alleviate its anxiety or do anything which would in any way make it more difficult for the public to stand up to the shocks and difficulties of the war. But in this case we do not believe that we have anything to say which would make for an improved effort by the public, and we do not believe that by not saying anything we in any way depress the morale of the public. I believe that the British public is quite able to go on fighting the war in its own way without wanting or insisting upon a statement from the Government about Hess when it is not in the public interest to say anything further about this person at all. [An HON. MEMBER "Never?"] It is not impossible that a time may come, but, as the Prime Minister stated, he is not in a position to make a statement now.
Finally, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked why the Government do not make statements about the future in this House and drew attention to statements made in Washington and in the City of London. It just happens that two statements have been made about the future in those two places. It does not mean that an opportunity may not be taken to make statements in this House-when it is thought fit to do so, but I would reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that it is the Government's intention to avoid making idealistic statements about the future which it may not be possible to realise. We are in the middle of a tough job. We are determined to see it through. The hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Major Adams) referred to the "Cliveden set"


and to the Holy Roman Empire. They are both dead, and may they so remain. We have to build up not only a new set in this country, but a new Europe, and the building-up of a new set in this country and of a new Europe is a job which can be got on with as well without making grandiose statements as by simply going on with our work. We also feel that the reactions of public opinion to the tentative statements so far made will considerably aid us in the task of working with the public in framing the future, whether in this country or in Europe. I believe that when the exchanges of views that have so far taken place between the representatives of the people in this House, the representations made by citizens themselves, and the thoughts of the Government are brought together, that will be the best manner of framing the future, rather than making ex cathedrâ statements from this Box before we are absolutely satisfied as to the nature of the world we wish to see. Therefore, I would assure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that we listen when observations are made in this House; let them be as constructive as possible, and we shall pay attention to them, and when the time comes, when we have defeated Hitler and all he means, then will be the time to frame our new world and outline it for the benefit of this House.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the speech made by the Lord Provost of Glasgow. I entirely agree with him about the magnificent work that the Lord Provost has done, but he made that speech first in my constituency, in my presence, and at a meeting sponsored by the Ministry of Information with nearly 3,000 people present. It really is rather a serious thing. I took it lightly, but many of the people present thought that, coming from the Lord Provost himself, it was an authoritative statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that it was not only his own surmise but that the Government do not expect people in that position —

Mr. Ellis Smith: Or Members of this House.

Mr. Lindsay: — to say authoritatively, "I know precisely what is behind the whole show"?

Mr. Butler: If the words I used originally were not quite definite—I thought they were—that the Lord Provost was speaking entirely on his own authority and was unauthorised by the Government, I repeat those words.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I intervene a moment? First of all, with regard to this question of the Lord Provost of Glasgow, as a Glasgow Member and one of the Glasgow group, I recognise the very great work Lord Provost Dollan has done on behalf of the war effort—no one more so—and he is a personal friend of mine. I want the right hon. Gentleman and the House to understand the position of the Lord Provost. He is not only the civic leader in Glasgow, but also the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and he has been surrounded constantly, as members of the Government have not, by rumours and by stories that are raging right throughout the workers in Scotland as to the true reasons for Hess's arrival in this country. I say at once that it was the Government's duty, not to make a statement giving full details about Hess's arrival or any negotiations that had taken place, but to make a statement allaying these suspicions. Hon. Members in all parts of the House remember the suspicions that were aroused in the country against Fifth Columnists, against certain eminent people in this country, some of whom have been arrested. Newspaper articles, since Hess's arrival, have constantly appeared, dealing unfairly, in my opinion, with the Hamilton family, because no proof was brought forward, making accusations which require that the workers of this country upon whose absolutely 100 per cent. effort you depend should be freed from suspicion of any ideas that Members of the present Government would enter into negotiations with Hess. They must be freed from any idea that Hess has any appeal to certain notable families in this country. These are the things that the Government should have taken steps to clear away from the minds of the people of this country.
The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) has said that we should not make a statement, that it is impossible to make a statement. The Prime Minister has asked the House and, of course, received assent, to go into Secret Session for 15 minutes Or 30 minutes on important


aspects of Government policy. We are to discuss shipping in a Debate which, if known to the Germans, would, I have no doubt, give them invaluable information with regard to our war effort in this country. But the Members of this House are trusted by the Government. The Government make statements to them, and surely the Government could at least, in a Secret Session of minutes, have made a clear statement to Members so that they could have gone to their constituencies and said, "There is no truth at all in these rumours, stories and wild imaginings flying around the country." That would have created a much better feeling in the minds of the working people of this country than the present policy followed by the Government.
I put that forward in no attempt to try to harass the Government or make them give away secrets necessary for national security, but merely to point out that, when the hon. Member for Norwich said that we did not wish to allay the suspicions of the German people, it should be remembered that we ought to take every step to allay the suspicions of our own people. Therefore, I feel that we have lost a certain amount of prestige, and given to the malcontents in this country—the small group of malcontents in this country—a handle, something with which they can go into the Clyde shipyards and engineering shops and say, "There is something fishy about this particular affair, there is something suspicious." "Remember," they say, "there are still members of the Government who belong to the section affiliated with the Cliveden set." They are saying these things, and the Government, in my opinion, must make a clear statement allaying these suspicious and making it clear to the people that Hess did not arrive in this country at the invitation, or with the knowledge, of any certain section of society. That statement must be made to support national security to-day.
I would make this plea for our civic chief in Glasgow. He has been surrounded by these difficulties, and the right hon. Member has not; the right hon. Member has not gone to meetings where groups of workers were instigated to ask questions about Hess, or to go to conferences where this question was being put about by certain sections of the community. He

has not had to face the difficulties of the Lord Provost of Glasgow. It is only natural that, in order to allay, as he thought, these suspicions, the Lord Provost should make a clear statement as far as he possibly could. The House must recognise that any statement he does make carries with it a certain amount of authority—the right hon. Gentleman may say that he had no authorisation from the Government to make this statement, but he is the Lord Provost of Glasgow—he is the civic chief—and he is the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and is constantly in touch with important sections of the community. Therefore any statement he does make is bound to create a certain amount of opinion. The Government must do more than merely make a stone-walling statement that once upon a time the Prime Minister said that he could not add to what he had already stated. They must recognise, in my opinion, that for the purpose of giving Members of this House even a fair chance of saying to their own people that these stories are untrue, a statement ought to be made. If the American Government can be trusted, so can we. There has not been a single instance within my opinion or knowledge of an hon. Member or a right hon. Member lacking, in his duty with regard to Secret Sessions. Therefore, the Government could quite easily go into a short Secret Session and make a clear statement to Members.
There is one other point. I did not follow the imaginings of the right hon. Member who spoke from the Front Bench opposite. I would say, with regard to his statement that the Cliveden set were dead, and that all those past follies of the Government had been left behind, that he has got to do more than make a simple statement like that. He has got to make it perfectly clear to the country that that sort of thing is dead, but so long as a man can arrive from an enemy country—and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the last war, as I know from my own knowledge, there were negotiations between the enemy, agreements with regard to the shelling of certain towns and headquarters—and if the right hon. Gentleman wants the Government to be placed in a position 100 per cent. strong, he must make it perfectly clear that these factors are absent to-day.
Hess did not arrive here on his own initiative. I have spoken to very experienced airmen who have flown many hundreds of hours in the present war. Every oné of them agrees that no one man could have made the flight Hess made without assistance. He had assistance, he must have had assistance. His course was one of the most difficult that could have been undertaken. It was one of the chanciest flights a man could have undertaken unless very careful preparation by experts had been made for that flight. All these stories are circulating in the country. Many people in the country are wondering what people assisted Hess, what group he had behind him, where that group were? The course of his flight, which was very accurate if he was making for the area for which he said he was making, required a thoroughly experienced airman to land where he did. All those points are being discussed. All those points are being thrown at Lord Provost Dollan. He has finally been forced to make a statement. It is up to the Government to make a definite statement, not attacking Lord Provost Dollan, but recognising the circumstances, making it clear to the people of this country, who are engaged in the war effort, that those secret negotiations of the past have gone by the board.
We have many more difficulties in Scotland than you have in the capital. In London, you have the seat of government; you have people who are constantly in touch with the Government; you are in the hub of affairs; people know Members of this House; they gather to cheer the Prime Minister. But in Scotland our people are far removed from the Government; they have not the same close touch. Other sections of opinion can sometimes make greater headway against national unity. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that a clear statement should be made in those areas, where criticism may be more trenchant, where arguments are put up which are not put up in London. The Government should recognise it is of the greatest importance that a statement should be made there.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I want to raise one small point. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) usually speaks with courage and

sturdy common sense. To-day, I thought his remarks were very unfortunate.

Mr. Butler: With the permission of the House, I think I can say that we have a high record of looking after prisoners of war. We shall always maintain the same standard as we have maintained, and as we expect other nations to maintain.

Mr. Sloan: Can the Minister give any undertaking that some restraint will be put upon the Lord Provost of Glasgow, and that Ayrshire is not to be made that gentleman's particular hunting ground? The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) impressed upon the House that the Lord Provost of Glasgow was badgered into making these statements. He came voluntarily to Ayrshire; nobody badgered him. He had a meeting attended by 3,000 people, and he made the statement voluntarily.

Mr. Davidson: Surely Lord Provost Dollan was invited to Ayrshire?

Mr. Sloan: I do not say that he was not invited, but he was not invited, I think, by the people of Ayrshire. Am I now to understand that the' statement made by Lord Provost Dollan was untrue? I must assume that it was untrue. The Lord Provost came to another Ayrshire town, Ayr, and made another speech. He said that when he met Hitler in 1936 Hitler simply roared at him. I have it on the very best authority, from people who are prepared to take the Bible and swear on it, that Dollan never saw Hitler in his life. I am not so impressed by Patrick Dollan as the hon. Member for Maryhill seems to be. I wonder whether it is Dollan's duty to make statements in regard to the war. He is merely the Provost of a poky little borough, a borough of slums and poverty.

Mrs. Hardie: Not altogether.

Mr. Sloan: Not altogether, I agree. But there are 15 Members of Parliament in Glasgow, and I am sure they are far better able to make pronouncements than is Lord Provost Dollan. Why it should be necessary for him to do these things, I cannot understand. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr Silverman) has performed a very useful service in raising this matter. I regret that he has not had any answer to his questions. Here we


have an individual who flies from Germany to Scotland—of all places in the world. Why Scotland? [Interruption.] I hear someone say that it is a neutral area. In any case, he flies 800 miles. He was an experienced flyer, as the hon. Member for Maryhill said, who flew a considerable distance over Scottish waters and over Scottish land, over land where there were Scottish farmers, watchers,. members of the Army and the Air Force and the Observer Corps, with all the necessary equipment, and landed within a few miles of his proposed object. We were told by a representative of the Air Ministry that from the very moment Hess baled out, a Spitfire was on his tail, but the Spitfire on his tail was Davy Maclean with his pitchfork. The common experience in Scotland is, discuss it with anybody you like, that, if Hess had been able to land and had not cracked his silly little ankle, he would have carried out his mission and would have returned to Germany without the people of Scotland knowing anything at all about it.

Sir Percy Hurd: He could not have done so unless they had given him petrol.

Mr. Sloan: He would have got the petrol all right; there is plenty of petrol there. It was stated by the Secretary of State for Air that the Duke of Hamilton had never seen Hess. Hess was at the Olympic games, and so was the Duke of Hamilton, a very popular figure, who belongs to the same class of society as Hess, which is not the class to which I belong. He attended functions at which Hess was present. One could imagine a gathering of these sportsmen awaiting the arrival of the Deputy-Fuehrer, and that, at any rate, the whole audience would rise and give the Nazi salute and cheer to the echo. Yet we were told that this gentleman never saw him and did not know him. I wonder whether the Marquess of Clydesdale had ever seen Hess. All the references have been to the Duke of Hamilton, and the question has occurred to a great number of people, Did the Marquess of Clydesdale, who is now the Duke of Hamilton, ever see or speak to

Hess? The matter requires a definite clean-up.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member is not casting a reflection upon a member of the other House.

Mr. Sloan: No, Sir, I am just wondering whether his memory has failed him, that is all. That is a common experience during war-time, I believe, and I am not casting any reflection. But why cannot we have answers to the points raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne? Did Hess come here with anything in the nature of peace proposals? I can very well understand why he should, because the people of Germany must be as sick of war as the people of Britain. The incessant bombings of their towns, just as we have had our towns' bombed, must have a reflection upon the minds of the people, and the restrictions on food in Germany are, I believe, more severe than restrictions on food here. I can quite well understand, too, that the military leaders in Germany must realise, as the military leaders in this country must realise, that this war cannot be brought to any definite conclusion by military effort. If it was recognised that there was the possibility of having this conflict settled along reasonable principles instead of by sacrificing lives, towns, ships and wealth—if Hess came along with proposals of this kind, why cannot we be informed? It is inconceivable that this perilous journey was undertaken without some motive behind it. We are told that the motive was that he was fleeing from his enemies inside Germany. That may be true; we cannot tell. But surely the people who have been interviewing Hess must know by this time. The stories that have been floating about and the things said in the country and Press, and on the wireless, have raised a tremendous amount of dubiety in the minds of the people of the country. Before this mystery deepens and becomes as silent as the grave, it is the Government's duty to tell us at the earliest possible moment what is behind the arrival of Hess in this country.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.